Site Administrators

Subscribe

IT’S JUST NOT ABOUT HATE

Posted by kayms99 on March 19, 2010

I was thinking about my comments last night on Steven Weber’s post, thinking about this subject.
I realized that I had probably come across as insensitive and ignorant about some of the truly desparate situations concerning this issue. I thought about my own experience.

I was a teenager and unmarried when I got pregnant. And I was terrified. My daughter’s father, being young himself was not very receptive to the idea of becoming a father. He wanted me to get an abortion.

Not only was I looking at the most terrifying personal dilemma ever in my life (that only a woman can fully understand) I had realized that he (the father) had lied to me.. clearly, he didn’t truly love me like he claimed he did… I was alone. I became even more terrified. Even then, as a teenager I knew abortion was out of the question. But, in order to receive some kind of desparately needed immediate emotional comfort, I pretended to agree.

The next day when it was officially confirmed that I was pregnant, my daughter’s father came thru and did the right thing. WE did the right thing. His Christian upbringing, I’m sure, had a lot to do with his decision. I know I was one of the “lucky” ones. I realized that again last night. I thought, what if he hadn’t “come thru”? I’m sure I would have continued living with my parents and raised my daughter on my own. But, what if my parents were not supportive, what if I hadn’t had that option either? I do understand COMPLETELY that with each step it gets harder and harder to resist the quick and “easy” way out. But, there is help, there are programs and church organizations, there ARE OTHER OPTIONS. It may not be easy, it may be a scary and lonely road to go down but it IS the best choice.. it IS the right thing to do for EVERYONE.

What the pro choice community constantly forgets to mention is the emotional toll of making the choice to abort. They don’t have to live with this choice for the rest of their lives. They conveniently don’t acknowledge the depression, sadness, regret and guilt that always comes with this decision. Abortion providers don’t mention these things when they “council” you.. basically, they just provide the service for monetary compensation and then send you on your way.

This is such a hard subject to discuss because I know that many have taken the option to terminate a pregnancy. The current number is around 4000 per day, each and every day in this country. I do NOT…DO NOT desire to make those people feel worse than I know that they already feel. It is especially hard to discuss the details of an actual abortion. But, I can’t let that stop me from trying to reach those who will face this dilema in the future. And also to reach those who actively support this destructive choice which, again, is destructive to all persons involved, not just to the unborn baby.

The desire of pro life proponents is NOT to spread “hate”. It is to try and counter the years and years of liberal brainwashing by the left that abortion is sometimes the “right” choice. I am so puzzled by the double standards of the left. Is war EVER a “right” choice with the left… no I don’t think so. Why not abortion?? WHY?? Is it ever a “right” choice to exact capital punishment?? NEVER. Why not the same with abortion?? A person who has committed the most heinous crimes deserves to be spared pain and suffering according to the left. But not an innocent (unborn) person? … and why? because they are still connected to another person…. a person who is more able to defend their rights, so they win out. What happened to protecting the defenseless?? I don’t understand. This is a very warped idea of “social justice” and “equal rights for everyone”. And this IS liberalism.

And the other thing that I wanted to mention, that I neglected to mention, is that God forgives. Oh how important this part is. He forgives us of all our sins if we ask for His forgiveness and accept His GIFT of salvation thru His Son. God forgives and He forgets. He does not want us to be tormented.. He WANTS us to find peace and He offers it thru Jesus. Peace and forgiveness are truly offered and truly obtainable.

186 Responses to “IT’S JUST NOT ABOUT HATE”

Linda Evangelistasaid

FROM YOUR ARTICLE:
“What the pro choice community constantly forgets to mention is the emotional toll of making the choice to abort. They don’t have to live with this choice for the rest of their lives. They conveniently don’t acknowledge the depression, sadness, regret and guilt that always comes with this decision. Abortion providers don’t mention these things when they “council” you.. basically, they just provide the service for monetary compensation and then send you on your way.

THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. I AM AN ABORTION COUNSELOR AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I COUNSEL OUR PATIENTS ON. IN ADDITION, FOLLOW UP COUNSELING IS PROVIDED. PLEASE GET YOUR “FACTS’ STRAIGHT.

Princessxxxsaid

kay~mssaid

“THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE. I AM AN ABORTION COUNSELOR AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I COUNSEL OUR PATIENTS ON. IN ADDITION, FOLLOW UP COUNSELING IS PROVIDED.”

That may very well be untrue in your situation but I’m willing to bet you are an exception. I would really like to know what exactly your counseling consists of and which company / clinic you work for. Planned Parenthood has abortion quotas. I highly doubt they are counceling anyone about the negatives of getting an abortion.

Anonymoussaid

“The next day when it was officially confirmed that I was pregnant, my daughter’s father came thru and did the right thing. WE did the right thing. His Christian upbringing, I’m sure, had a lot to do with his decision”

WHERE WAS HIS CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING WHEN HE WAS HAVING EXTRAMARITAL TEENAGE SEX WITH YOU?
YOU CHRISTIANS ARE SO FUNNY. YOU DO EVERYTHING YOU SAY OTHERS AREN’T SUPPOSED TO.

janetshusbsaid

Kay, I’ve just been discussing abortion rights with you on the HP and I’ve just read your story here. I can appreciate and support your decision to keep your child. A child is a precious being, something to be cherished and nourished. I’m so glad your family was supportive emotionally and financially. But you must realize that this is often not the case and things turn out very badly for the child. Here is another story, from my family, unembellished and true. My unstable and irresponsible cousin got pregnant at 15. The father, also 15 was no more than a child himself. My aunt, a mentally unstable mother herself gave my cousin a choice, abort or leave. Had my cousin delivered a child into this world it would have had an unstable girl already flirting with drugs for a mother and no financial or emotional support from either of the two families involved . Abortion in this case prevented an unloved and uncared for existence of abandonment, mental anguish, instability and addiction from happening to an innocent life. We do not have the right make decisions for other women especially when we can never know their situations. We only have the right to decide what is right for ourself. Here’s a thought to keep in mind: No one would ever consider telling a woman what kind of curtains she had to put up in their home. So why should anyone consider telling a woman something so personal and private as when she should have a child?

Rosesaid

You’re right. I will always remember the details of my abortion. What I remember most is the doctor. At the end of the procedure, he looked my straight in the eyes and said “it’s done.” There was a question mark in his eyes.

I looked back straight in his eyes and said with all my being, “Thank you.”

He and I both understood that the right choice had been made. It was a singular moment for me – a moment when, for the first time, I understood that there are men in this world who care for women as unique individuals, men who believe women’s lives are valuable in themselves, men who dedicate their work to that belief.

I bless that man with all my heart, not just for his medical skill, but for his caring and respect, for his trust of me. He changed the course of my life in more ways than one. Before him, I feared and hated men, for reasons I won’t go into here. He showed me there are caring men in this world.

Bet that’s a story you didn’t expect to hear. I also bet you’re busy coming up with explanations why it was all a deep misapprehension on both our parts. You would be wrong.

I am happy for you that you had a family and a partner who were willing to support you. I applaud your choice more than you would believe. You think the pro-choice community is all about abortion, but that is not the case. It’s all about women having the right to determine the course of their lives. You determined yours; I determined mine. You would fight to deny other women that right, while I fight to give all women that right. Where there is a certain misapprehension is in your belief that your choice is the right one for everyone.

One thing you cannot tell me is that there was no suffering in your choice, and that you haven’t lived with your choice for the rest of you life… clearly you’ve made it a big part of your identity.

Do the supportive programs you believe in explain to frightened teen aged girls the physical risks of continued pregnancy and childbirth? 3% of teen aged deaths in the US are from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Not so high here, where we have sex education, access to contraception and abortion. But did you know that the main cause of death among women aged 15-19 in developing countries is complications of pregnancy and childbirth, with a much higher rate among girls younger than 15? I hope you don’t just skip over that: THE MAIN CAUSE of DEATH for girls in many places is PREGNANCY and CHILDBIRTH. Hundreds of girls die every day because they don’t have access to safe, legal abortion, some here in America. So much for being “pro-life.”

BTW, I find the title of your piece very interesting. “It’s not JUST about hate.”

But it is about hate, too – hatred of women, and their capacity to reproduce, a capacity many patriarchal societies seek to control, as you do, through guilt and shame and punishment, even unto death. It is indeed a good thing that God forgives.

Anonymoussaid

Choice is not just a (code word) for abortion. Choice is about making deliberate childbearing decisions, considering all medical and moral options, without government interference. It’s about women having an equal place at life’s table. Gloria Feldt, Planned Parenthood.

janetshusbsaid

“They (the pro-choice community) conveniently don’t acknowledge the depression, sadness, regret and guilt that always comes with this decision. Abortion providers don’t mention these things when they “council” you.. basically, they just provide the service for monetary compensation and then send you on your way.”

I don’t know where you are getting your information but having been on the board of a women’s reproductive health care facility I can tell you that most of your information is woefully incorrect. Where to start? Let’s put the money making myth to rest. Women’s health and abortion clinics DO NOT make money. They just barely make their pay role month after month. They are fund raising constantly in order to maintain services and the staff works for the lowest wages in the medical profession. If one wants to make money one goes into dermatology not into performing abortions or providing for women’s health and reproductive issues.

About counseling: State and federal law mandates that all abortion providers discuss the emotional effects possible. What they don’t do is declare that all women will suffer guilt, shame depression etc. because it isn’t true. Nor are abortion providers or the staff involved cold and unfeeling. They understand this is a difficult time in a woman’s life, they are sensitive and caring. They are trained and by nature inclined to provide emotional support There is competent, caring medical services both before and after the abortion. There is always follow up medical care.

Most people do not realize is that these reproductive clinics are dedicated to preventing the need for abortions. Most of their time and money goes toward birth control. They have developed exemplary educational programs for teens and adults. Much of the total time of a facility is spent discussing the social, economic and emotional issues of family planning, women’s reproductive health issues and prescribing birth control. Realistically, most women’s reproductive health clinics are in the abortion prevention business. Only about 15% of the funding and 5% of the time goes to abortion the rest of their time and energy goes to preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Have you taken the time to visit a Planned Parenthood, Family Planning or locally funded clinic? You are in for a surprise. They are nice people. They care about babies and most of them are mothers themselves.

kay~mssaid

TuoulumneFlower, you said: “It is you who keep defining abortion as women spiting men. It’s ironic, given the context of this article – rape. A rapist isn’t a horrible man, trying to control a woman? Oh, that’s right, I forgot – rape is just God’s plan. What a horrible, woman-hating God you have.”

I want to address a couple of things here.. first, no, you are blatantly wrong…it is you and many others who are making the issue of abortion a gender issue. It is not.. it is a life and death issue. Stopping a beating heart is killing. Calling it a choice does not change that. If someone kills another person do you call that a choice also? After all, a choice was made. The issue is the taking of another’s life, not the action of making a “simple” choice.

The other point is that your method of debating is problematic… you are debating words that you claim that I am saying that I have not. That’s a pretty convenient method of debating for you (and so many other liberals I find) but it’s not an acceptable or valid method. Please only use MY words when debating this issue. Not words or views that you’ve conveniently attached to me that I’ve NEVER SAID.

Here’s another saying… “ignorance is bliss”. And I’ve NEVER found that idea to be more utilized than with pro choicers. I’ve never seen such blatant ignorance in any other group as the pro abortion group. And I do truly understand the need for that ignorance for many who have made that choice. But it is living in denial, it is living a lie and worse, it often manifests itself into an active agenda to “prove” and “convince” society that the choice they’ve made was not wrong. And in the course of doing so, encourages and promotes others to make the same choice… that there is nothing at all wrong, in any way what so ever, with making that choice.

Ideally, I would prefer to not debate this issue with those that have made this choice. I do not get any pleasure out of trying to get someone to “realize” or acknowledge what they’ve done. It can’t be undone so what’s the point? Well, unfortunately there still is a point… that if they are convinced, they will stop promoting and spreading pro choice views that encourages the problem (the atrocity) to continue.

Yes, I understand that there are a variety of reasons for ending a pregnancy, that it is not always about spiting men. But it IS the main argument I’ve been given here… that “no man is going to tell me what I can and can’t do with my body”. The “Men” component has entered the debate here by several commenters quite a few times in defending the “right” to abort.

And my poor opinion of women is because of this very issue! It’s, of course not all women, but from what I’ve been witnessing for quite awhile now, it’s the majority. There are many great women.. that make me PROUD to be a woman.. Sarah Palin giving birth to her disabled son is one example. The stories I hear of women who have been given the recommendation to abort because of the threat to their health and they refuse to because they understand that there is ANOTHER life to consider… and that it is their very own child. They put their trust in God and let His will be done. They refuse to take the other option which they understand is to kill another life. They understand that that is not God’s will. It IS about obeying God for Christians. But it is also for many others simply about the act / crime of killing and denying those THEIR basic RIGHTS TO THEIR LIFE.

And most of those men fought not just for women’s “rights” but for the rights of ALL.. which includes the unborn.

“A large portion of the men you keep going on about didn’t think one thought about women’s rights, friend.”

How in the world do you know what these men were thinking about as they were risking and losing their lives??? Unbelievable.

“In every war you care to look at, men use their position of power to rape women, sometimes in huge numbers…

It’s about the 2006 gang rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl by American soldiers, who then went on to kill her entire family, including her six year old sister, and try to hide the evidence.”

And once again, why don’t you suggest they put this on all the men’s tombstones that have been brought back in coffins? Every one of them.

Do you comprehend basic math? Because these incidences that you are referring to are EXCEPTIONS. Do you know what that word means? You clearly, for the sake of making yourself appear that you are “right”, will tragically dishonor the majority, will attach these horrible things to all men that have fought and DIED to protect the rights of everyone.. INCLUDING YOU! This is your BIAS showing. This is your DENIAL and IGNORANCE showing.

You said: “Men did not secure women’s rights. Women secured their own rights through peaceful means, marching in the streets, petitioning their government, going to court. Good heavens, girl, read some history!”

And apparently, incredibly, you still do not understand that what they did ENABLED you to be able to protest, petition, and go to court. You wouldn’t have been able to do that in communist or Muslim ruled countries without risking your life.

You said: “What if men demanded their liberty (as they did, thankfully) and refused to fight? I would be hugely relieved that they’d finally gotten the gist of God’s commandment! ”

And you would have no freedoms and possibly not even your life. That IS the world we live in unfortunately. Liberals are so blissfully IGNORANT!!

You said: “I’m less concerned with the ragtag group of Muslim fundamentalists then I am about the vicious fundamentalist Christians (such as yourself) who want to force people to live according to their twisted view of the Bi_ble. ”

And all us “vicious fundamentalist Christians” want is for society to stop torturing and murdering innocent life.

princessxxxsaid

janetshusbsaid

I guess I’ll take Princess’s advice. Kay seems to have too little understanding of the Constitution , history, ethics, logic, sociology, and embryology and way too much religiosity to carry on an intelligent conversation about this subject.

I would however like to leave you with this irrefutable fact about your idol, the one that makes you PROUD to be a woman ……. Sarah Palin had an amniocentesis procedure performed during her pregnancy . People who are contemplating an abortion have amniocentesis done. Those who accept every life as sacred never have this done. Saint Sarah carried the child to term (which may turn out to be a really bad choice for the child considering the mom) but she was certainly not accepting God’s will when she got that amniocentesis performed.

Rosesaid

Have I got it wrong then? You don’t think rape is part of God’s plan? I got that impression from you posting on an article about Sharon Angle saying reproduction through rape is “God’s plan.” (Thankfully, not MY God’s plan.) You seemed to be supporting her contention. Are you, or aren’t you?

Abortion IS a gender issue. How many men do you know who’ve been pregnant?

Abortion is indeed also a life or death issue. What you fail to acknowledge is, that includes the lives and deaths of WOMEN. Of course you ignored the facts on maternal deaths around the world from pregnancy and childbirth. You ignore the facts of maternal deaths from botched abortion, too. All these facts are easily available to you. Ignorance is bliss, indeed.

You want us to respond to your words? Then I’ll ask you to tell us why thousands of women’s deaths are acceptable to you. While you’re at it, tell us why they’re acceptable to God.

These women’s and girl’s deaths are largely PREVENTABLE, friend. They are UNNECESSARY. Yet you accept them. Why? You want a debate, come up with some straight answers.

The person who won’t face the facts here is you. To keep insisting that life starts at conception does not make it so. Reproduction begins with conception, but there’s no guarantee it will continue. Ask any woman who’s had a miscarriage. Ask any woman who’s had a particularly heavy, somewhat late period. Ask the survivors of any woman who died from complications of pregnancy, along with her offspring…

Women give life to the developing fetus; it does not have life of it’s own. Someone else is breathing for it, drinking for it, eating for it, eliminating for it, providing an environment for it to develop in, and providing half the genetic code it develops by. WOMEN ARE NOT INCUBATORS. It is not “killing” to choose not to reproduce. The truth is, not all pregnancies are sustainable.

The main argument you have been given time and time again is that WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS. They have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce. You keep dragging men into it, not us. How about you come right out and tell us in black and white that women have no rights. Also tell us how that has nothing to do with their gender, if you can swing it.

You want some basic numbers about rape in war time? (Something tells me that really, really, you don’t.) Well, here are some:

” ‘The Rape of Nanking’ …is generally remembered for the invading forces’ barbaric treatment of Chinese women. Many thousands of them were killed after gang rape, and tens of thousands of others brutally injured and traumatized.”

Rape in Iraq after the illegal invasion by America: “Before the war began in Iraq, rape was not a frequently reported crime and when it did occur the legal recourse was clear. Today, though the exact figures are unknown, estimates of rape are in the thousands.”

Thousands, tens of thousands… throughout history. Do a little research, ok?

I will happily acknowledge that there are men who fight in wars for noble reasons, who risk their lives for others. Not incidentally, there are women who do the same.

How about you acknowledge that there are also men who start wars to gain money and power, who kill in wars just because they can? Do you think the Third Reich started their war for good purpose?

Should not the tombstones of the gang rapists and murderers of of Abeer Hamza and her family NOT include that they were despicable, sadistic cowards?

Your ignorance of communism borders on the laughable, I’m afraid. In most communist countries, abortion was and is legal. One big exception was Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu. He wanted to raise the birth rate there, so he (notice the gender there) instituted an extreme anti-choice government. “The fetus is the property of the entire society,” Ceausescu proclaimed. “Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity.”

“It was one of the late dictator’s cruelest commands. At first Romania’s birthrate nearly doubled. But poor nutrition and inadequate prenatal care endangered many pregnant women. The country’s infant-mortality rate soared to 83 deaths in every 1,000 births (against a Western European average of less than 10 per thousand). About one in 10 babies was born underweight; newborns weighing 1,500 grams (3 pounds, 5 ounces) were classified as miscarriages and denied treatment. Unwanted survivors often ended up in orphanages. ‘The law only forbade abortion,’ says Dr. Alexander Floran Anca of Bucharest. ‘It did nothing to promote life.’

“Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents – dubbed the “menstrual police” by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to “produce” a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted to forging statistics. ‘If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary,’ says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. ‘But it wasn’t our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor.’

Not surprisingly, the maternal mortality rates in Romania at that time also soared. More dead women. God’s Plan, again?

There are many women and men in Muslim countries who are fighting for women’s rights, dear. But of course in your mind women only have rights if granted them by men…

On that subject, tell me again – why should I not avail myself of rights others have fought to give me?

Let’s have some answers, dear. And please don’t bring your belief in God into it – one of the rights I enjoy is freedom of religion. You cannot force me to live according to your beliefs, got it?

kay~mssaid

Janetshusb, consider that taking Princess’ advice allows me (by your reasoning) to dismiss you as being able to carry on an intelligent conversation. But don’t worry, I don’t need an excuse to exit this debate.

princessxxxsaid

kay~mssaid

Rose, you asked if I “got it?”. This is what I got from your comment: you, as with so many other pro choicers, are extremely ignorant and one sided. And I know that no doubt you believe that it is me and pro lifers who are those things.

So, what you then do is compare the two worst case scenarios… to determine which is the worst. And an adult woman losing her life due to her pregnancy is pretty bad I agree. But, at least she had a life as opposed to the unborn. And at least she wasn’t murdered in cold blood, by her own flesh and blood.

And of those other reasons to get an abortion, I believe don’t come close to justifying ending the life of another. It’s just that simple. Every excuse you give is like saying that it’s ok to take another’s life.. INNOCENT life.. on purpose, for these reasons. It isn’t. How could it be?? I look at my daughter and I can’t think of any reason that would have justified denying her her life.

What about the elderly who cannot take care of themselves? Just kill them because the inconvenience is too great for their “loved” ones. Or they can’t afford to take care of them, or they are disabled, their quality of life isn’t high enough and they should be “put out of their misery”. That is what you all are arguing here. The only difference is that liberals have managed to twist the constitution to make it legal to kill those that have no voice and cannot defend themselves.

I do understand that when the fetus is not formed (doesn’t have a heart beat) it can strongly be argued legally that it isn’t murder or unconstitutional. That it is more of a moral or religious issue. But, as it is now, it is legal to stop a beating heart; that is killing of life and it SHOULD be against the law.. it is unconstitutional; murder is against the law.

You (and others) said that the fetus is totally dependend on the mother “Women give life to the developing fetus; it does not have life of it’s own. Someone else is breathing for it, drinking for it, eating for it, eliminating for it, providing an environment for it to develop in, ”

Wow, I feel sorry for anyone who is, or might be, dependent on you or need your help one day.. and hopefully for them it won’t be a life or death situation.

You said: “Of course you ignored the facts on maternal deaths around the world from pregnancy and childbirth. You ignore the facts of maternal deaths from botched abortion, too. All these facts are easily available to you. Ignorance is bliss, indeed.”

Who made the choice to be in the position that these women were in? (and I’m not talking about the 1% rape cases here, please don’t bother). And if they died.. who killed them?? Who purposefully took their life?? No one. What you are arguing is to instead, TAKE another’s life, murder them and for no choice that they made.. they are completely helpless and innocent… THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Yes… “ignorance is bliss INDEED”! You people are unbelievable.

And I noticed how you conveniently didn’t bother to mention those communist countries that FORCE abortions on women. I see that as a worse atrocity but I have a feeling that you probably don’t. You are clearly not objective here. It should be NO DIFFERENT in your book.. it’s the very same thing. The point is that communist countries deny individual rights and those that allow abortions now can change that anytime they want. That was the point. Men faught for YOUR freedoms, so government couldn’t tell you what to do… with YOUR body but not that of another… (got it?).

As to rape being God’s plan? Are you serious? This is too simple minded to even address so I’m not going to except to say that God gave us something called free will. And those that abuse that free will, will be punished. God’s plan is for us to worship and obey Him of our own free will. Unfortunately (because of free will) it doesn’t always work out that way.

Rosesaid

Nope, you still haven’t “got it.” You believe what you believe, and you cannot fathom that other people don’t. You think you have a great truth, if you can just get other people to see it.

Here’s what I believe:

“All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon; and those whose gaze is fixed upon the pointer will never see beyond. Even let her catch sight of the moon, and still she cannot see its beauty.”

Your gaze is fixed on the pointer. You cannot see the beauty of God, who loves women equally to men. I only remain in this debate with you in an effort to let you glimpse beyond the pointing finger of your male-dominated Christian church. As in so many organized religions, they want to keep your gaze firmly upon the pointer they’ve defined. It’s no accident that in their churches, men are superior and women are obedient vessels. They went so far as to deny women any spiritual power, at all; they turned priestesses into whores, and denied that women were Christ’s disciples. Does your Bible contain the Book of Mary?

Tell me what Christ said about abortion, specifically.

You’re right, I do think you are ignorant and one-sided. Obviously you’re ignorant about human reproduction. You believe that reproduction has taken place when the man performs his part. Wrong.

And you are one-sided about human rights. According to you, embryos have a right to life, but women do not. After all, they’ve already been born. This is such a strange view of the right to life – those who are born female don’t have it – I hardly know where to start!

Of course I compare two worst case scenarios. I don’t find it so easy to dismiss women as human beings who have a right to life. You, however, think that if women die in pregnancy, although such deaths are preventable, that’s just “God’s will.” I do not believe God hates women that much, and nothing you say will change that. My God does not hate women.

Nobody killed those women who die of preventable causes? YOU would kill them through willfully denying them a way to save their own lives! I’ve given you the facts about how often unwanted pregnancy leads to women dying, for heaven’s sake. Can you see the future? Do you know in advance which women are going to die? No, you do not. So, you deny ALL women the right to life.

Funny that you can’t see your belief is simply the obverse of the pro-choice community. We are willing to accept that not all pregnancies will result in birth; you are willing to accept that some pregnancies will lead to women’s deaths. Difference is, we know that women will always abort unwanted pregnancies, and giving them a safe way to do so will save lives, including the lives of their future children.

You think a woman who chooses abortion deserves to die, and you will do nothing to prevent that death. Heck, you think a woman who has been gang raped deserves to die from complications of an unwanted pregnancy, as well. Delightful, your understanding of God’s love… (not).

You keep saying you are “pro life,” but you are not. You too are choosing which souls should die.

I think women have a right to life. I do not think God wants women to die unecessarily in such large numbers. Why else would we have free will or brains to think with?

The most outrageous thing about people like you is this belief that you can interfere in the greatest gift God endowed us with: free will. If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one. It could not be more simple. Yet you’ve decided to act for God by interfering in the will of others. So much for women having freedom of religion, huh?

How do you get the idea that I forgot communist China? I said that aboriton is legal in communist countries, which is accurate. Please, don’t get on your high-horse about how communist countries deny people their rights: according to you, I have no right to life, to liberty, to pursue happiness, to freedom of religion, or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure – of my uterus! You haven’t a leg to stand on, railing about how oppressive communism is, for heaven’s sake.

You again reveal your wilful ignorance by assuming that pro-choice is limited to choosing NOT to be pregnant. I am appalled at the Chinese policy of forced abortion – in exactly the same way I am appalled at Ceausescu’s policy of forced pregnancy! What part of “WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE” are you having trouble understanding? Repeat that to yourself, a RIGHT to CHOOSE. Forced pregancny is wrong, forced abortion is wrong. I believe with all my heart and soul that if individual women the world over are allowed to decide their own reproductive functioning without interference, this world would be a much better place.

Once again, darling, men did not fight for my freedoms, women did. Men accepted that fight, and have since fought for my freedoms; women have too. However, left up to men, you and I would still legally be property. Women are still considered property in many places around the world, in fact.

Um, really, I need to explain to you that a senior citizen is a human person with a right to life? You’re the one who seems awfully confused what constitutes a human being, not I.

Your statement that you feel sorry for anyone who relies on me for care is simply beneath contempt.

If MY BODY is keeping someone else alive, and I choose NOT TO continue that function, that IS me choosing what to do with MY BODY. If the fetus had a life of it’s own, it would survive removal from my body, wouldn’t it? Please, just once, answer this directly – you keep telling us embryos are alive. HOW?

kay~mssaid

You said: “Then I’ll ask you to tell us why thousands of women’s deaths are acceptable to you. While you’re at it, tell us why they’re acceptable to God.

These women’s and girl’s deaths are largely PREVENTABLE, friend. They are UNNECESSARY. Yet you accept them. Why? You want a debate, come up with some straight answers. ”

Here’s the “staight answer” and it’s really not that complicated. It’s wrong to kill one life in order to spare another. Especially when the one killed is completely innocent AND unable to defend itself. That is what’s UNACCEPTABLE.

And I’m not necessarily talking about the undeveloped fetus, I’m talking about the formed fetus WITH A HEART BEAT, that can feel pain and exhibits personality traits and is LEGALY aborted. (This is leaving God out of it btw). I’m thinking about them more than the women who made the choice that landed them where they are and wants to kill their own flesh and blood inside them.

The real question is… why is it acceptable to YOU and all pro choicers that these unborn babies suffer by the millions?

“WOMEN ARE NOT INCUBATORS.”

I’m really tired of hearing this. It’s a ridiculous analogy. No, women are NOT incubators. But, like it or not (and clearly you don’t) women are the ones who produce the offspring. And I can guarantee you God’s plan is NOT for women to kill that offspring inside them. But it is pretty obvious that liberal pro choice women couldn’t care less about what God’s will is.

“It is not “killing” to choose not to reproduce.”

who said it was? But AFTER the conception, it IS killing. This is a SCIENTIFIC fact.

“The truth is, not all pregnancies are sustainable.”

So, it’s ok to kill them because they MIGHT NOT survive? Great reasoning.

“The main argument you have been given time and time again is that WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS. They have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce.”

Right, women DO have the right to choose to reproduce or not, but once a life is conceived, we (no one) should have the “right” to take that life away.

“You keep dragging men into it, not us.”

You’ve “dragged” men into it several times in your comment.

And I don’t understand what your point is about bringing up those incidents of rape in wars. What exactly is your point? (it can’t be that I am “dragging” men into it, that is you again). It can’t be that all men are rapists because these incidents do not represent all men, only a very very small minority. It can’t be that what this small minority does should justify the legality of abortions (it’s not the unborn baby’s fault). I don’t know what your point is here.

“How about you acknowledge that there are also men who start wars to gain money and power, who kill in wars just because they can?”

I did that already on the other blog I believe. And again, these men are the MINORITY.. it’s simple basic math. Just like the horrible women who kill their children after they are born… they’re the minority and don’t represent all women who have children… right?

And I’ll reiterate again the reason war was brought into this debate by me. Because men more often accept their role in life even if it means that they will lose their life. Women (today, partly because of aggressive liberalism) more often do NOT accept their role in life… even if that means that they cause the loss of life of another, their own flesh and blood.

“Should not the tombstones of the gang rapists and murderers of of Abeer Hamza and her family NOT include that they were despicable, sadistic cowards? ”

I believe that their tombstones SHOULD include those descriptions. I’m puzzled why you would think otherwise.

“There are many women and men in Muslim countries who are fighting for women’s rights, dear. But of course in your mind women only have rights if granted them by men… ”

Well, YOU mentioned “men” again. And btw, we have women in government now (more all the time). So pretty soon you won’t be able to use that excuse I guess. Who will be the “villains” then I wonder?

“On that subject, tell me again – why should I not avail myself of rights others have fought to give me?”

You should, just not at the expense of another who’s rights were also fought for.

So, there are your answers “dear”. I hope you take the time and really consider the other side of this issue… the ultimate suffering of the truly innocent and helpless.

princessxxxsaid

“liveprayer bill keller is also a racist and i can prove it. May 29, 2008 keller met with the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists.
here is the link to his devotional on that meeting. a very negative look at the TBABJ http://liveprayer.com/ddarchive3.cfm?id=3342

and on his show immediately following the meeting, he described the way that “he” was treated as a lynching.

princessxxxsaid

“liveprayer bill keller is also a racist and i can prove it. May 29, 2008 keller met with the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists.
here is the link to his devotional on that meeting. a very negative look at the TBABJ http://liveprayer.com/ddarchive3.cfm?id=3342

Rosesaid

I’ve repeated this till I’m pretty sick of your willful obtuseness, but I’ll try one more time. The fetus is not a living individual, ITS MOTHER IS. It’s mother is in the process of reproducing. With men, that’s ejaculation. Or are you one of those who think masturbation is murder, too? After all, to spill ejaculate without trying to reproduce denies LIFE to an INNOCENT that MIGHT be born, doesn’t it? Shouldn’t we let men who do that die a horrible death of hemorrage, or something, for their guilt in “killing” so many innocents?

I bet you understand that isn’t killing, though. Any more than your failure to donate bone marrow to a dying leukemia patient is killing. It’s choosing not to give life to another – and that is YOUR RIGHT.

You’ve said several times that there are acceptable reasons to kill, anyway. To secure human rights. To secure liberty. To defend one’s life.

But somehow none of those reasons apply to women. I’m sorry, dear, but the title of this piece could not be more wrong. You have to hate women a whole damn bunch to say they have NO RIGHTS, not even the right to life.

Well, at least you’re honest. You completely accept the thousands and thousands of women’s unnecessary deaths related to pregnancy around the world. Women are just guilty little Eves, anyway, right? Fetuses are “innocent;” women are “guilty.” Or at least ate of the tree of knowledge – believe me, we’re on to your reasoning here.

You actually said “Well, at least they HAD their life…” Such as it was, I guess. Maybe next time, they’ll be born male and allowed to survive sexual maturity.

Do you have a clue how many of those women you think deserve to die take the developing fetus with them? I guess God accepts that too, along with miscarriage and failure of the fertilized egg to implant something like 50% of the time. God’s sure got a funny old way of insuring reproduction: killing the mothers, causing the pregnancies to fail, and so on.

My point about bringing up rape in war is two-fold. First, you wrote about it thus: “Do you comprehend basic math? Because these incidences that you are referring to are EXCEPTIONS.”

Um, no, dear. As you can see from the articles, rape in war is often used deliberately as a weapon, in a wide-spread assualt against TENS OF THOUSANDS of women in short periods. Some “exception.” Rape in war is a spoil of war, and it happens in every war, every where, through out history… no exception.

Mainly I was curious to see if you would display the slightest sign of empathy towards your brutalized sisters. Well, of course not. Just because a dozen soldiers with guns rape a woman and impregnate her, is no reason for you to think of that she might feel pain, that the “personality traits” she displays might be utterly shattered, or that she might still have a right to liberty. The rapists took her freedom good and proper, and it will stay taken. That’s God’s way, according to you.

Sheesh, what was I thinking? I keep forgetting women aren’t human beings, to you. Destroying them is fine, as long as no one destroys the developing offspring of the rapist. (After all, it might be male.)

Who do you think you’re arguing with? I think women have a right to abortion on demand. It’s none of my business, and none of yours, why. Maybe it’s a girl who’s been raped by her dad; maybe it’s a teenager who had unprotected sex with her boyfriend; maybe it’s woman who just learned her fetus has no brain; maybe it’s a woman with several living children who can’t afford another. Point is, they don’t have to explain themselves to anyone, least of all a hater like you.

I’m done talking with you; good luck in life, carrying so much hate for your own gender in your heart; it’s going to be a rocky road. May the Goddess forgive you.

janetshusbsaid

Please, please take a course in embryology at a state university before you post any more views about reproduction. Follow that up with a quickie course in Constitutional Law. What you have is a religious belief about reproduction. It works well for you and I’m happy for you that it does. But to go swanning around telling others that life begins when you and your god say it does and that the world has to honor your god’s ideas of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and childbearing is just so woefully ignorant that it makes you look foolish. Sign up for some college courses. It will give you more satisfaction than posting nonsense.

princessxxxsaid

You’re across the yellow line on the insult point of view, Princess… I mean, I don’t think saying “Kay is stupid” is bringing anything to the debate, isn’t it? Well, of course, Kay is also a wall and she can’t see anyone else point of view, but that’s not a reason to act like her, isn’t it?

@Kay

You like this subject don’t you?^^

So, here is the point of view of a French on some points of this debate (because we went through that and you didn’t answered my last post, who was very long, granted.):

Here we have a national healthcare that takes care of pratically everything, and all of our abortionist staff are civil servants. Therefore, no money involved whatsoever. And we still have abortions. In fact, at a lower level, but we also have a very efficient contraception program.

Our abortion rate stagnates after lowering for quite a lot of time. Several explanations might be considered, separetely or all contributing at the same time:
*More immigration of non-sex educated people
*A revival of religious extremism, which forbids the use of contraception
*A downside effect of abortion, consisting in using abortion as a “contraception” method, as it should not be the case.

Some personal views about the problem:

Even if abortion due to rape is only 1%, I think that this option should be kept for them. and this is a very important issue in less developed countries.

Setting the limit about when a foetus becames a human being is a very difficult thing, since conception is a continuous process, but I think that the limit “being able to live without the mother” is a rather good one. Before, the foetus is really only a pack of cells… With a beating heart, ok, but all animals have beating hearts. You can even destroy the brain of someone and keep his heart beating…

Taking decisions that affect everyone’s life based on religious beliefs is WRONG. It’s against separation of church and state.

Although I prefer that we encourage adoption programs (which I think is the best way), I recognize that sometimes abortion is necessary.

What if Abortion was ALSO part of God’s Plan? Anyway, how could we ever oppose the birth of an human being if God want it born?

And on a different point:

Could you start considering people as individual beings with their own opinions rather than only representative of a group with uniform and rigid beliefs (which you very often invent by the way), here it is “pro-choice”, but this could also apply to “liberals” or others.

janetshusbsaid

To Horsservice, Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful post on the subject from another country. In the state of Maine, we also had an active reproductive education/inexpensive birth control program and significantly lowered the numbers of abortions performed. Then funding for responsible, realistic, accurate sex-ed was reduced and religious centered “abstinence only” sex-ed was increased and the numbers of abortions again rose. I find that when religion gets mixed up into any reproductive issue information on birth control is restricted and abortions increase. Interestingly, the most religious are the most opposed to both birth control and abortion. It’s very hard to understand a position like that.

I also think that teaching on reproduction should be separated from religion, and that teenagers should be left the choice. After that, it’s the job of the parents to educate their children about what and how they should do things, according to their beliefs.

And I have trouble understanding how contraception is against religion. Or, for this matter, sex. I mean, there used to be (and there still is on a reduced scale) religions that included sex in their rituals, and primitive societies were much more “liberal” about sex than we are. And in fact, animals are rather “liberal” also (but we are not animals).
While I do agree that abortion can be controversial (let’s face it, it’s a grey zone), contraception has for whole point to PREVENT abortion.

Rosesaid

Horsservice, join the club… she has not posted a few of my longer replies either.

Sex is a spiritual practice. (Note to Kay – rape is not sex.) I believe religions that try so very hard to constrain it have in mind the control of other people; religion as “the opiate of the masses.” The more male-dominated religions are particularly interested in controlling women; hence, opposition to contraception. Kay’s belief that reproduction has taken place when the man has done his part is an off-shoot of that thinking. In a really illogical twist, opposition to contraception is just another way of saying that men have a God-given right to choose to reproduce but women do not. Anyway it has less to do with spiritual belief than with wielding power, which is a perversion of God’s love. Clearly we have free will.

As for rape accounting for 1% of abortions, it’s not the number that matters. It’s the fact that it’s no one’s business; a victim of rape should not have to explain herself. In most cases, she would be begging yet more men for control of her own body. It’s just a continuation of the rape. To give those who have suffered rape the right to privacy, all women must have that right. And they do.

My thoughts have not changed on this subject. I do want to ask for clarification on something though.

Kay said: Here’s the “staight answer” and it’s really not that complicated. It’s wrong to kill one life in order to spare another. Especially when the one killed is completely innocent AND unable to defend itself. That is what’s UNACCEPTABLE.

Are you talking morally, ethically or legally? Because it is not wrong to kill one life in order to spare another. No life is more important than another, but at the same time there are situations where the best case scenario is the patient dies with little to no pain. Again I will use this analogy to show what I believe you are saying. You are basically saying that if a woman who already has living children, is placed into a situatation where she must choose between her life and the fetus. For instance, the patient (mother) has a complication with her pregnancy that is life threatening, with a fetus that has a low percentile of surviving. Are you saying the patient who has living children should selfishly sacrifice herself for the best of a child that more than likely will not survive anyway. Because abortion is wrong, the patient (mother) should choose to die rather than having an operation that will end in an aborted pregnancy, that would save her life. I know that it is rare, but not so rare it doesnt happen. It is a situational thing..I feel it is wrong to just get an abortion because you cannot afford the child. But I do not feel that having an abortion is wrong 100% of the time. And choosing one life over another is not wrong or Unethical, it is realistic. If you think it is not try working in emergency medicine.

“The truth is, not all pregnancies are sustainable.”
^^
this statement is true, if it wasn’t your body wouldn’t abort a pregnancy prematurely. (Miscarriage is when a woman’s body aborts a pregnancy. For the purpose of this writing I am taking the term abortion to describe both the natural and unnatural occurance of a pregnancy ending prematurely. By law a miscarriage is an abortion. Since in most states the term abortion means the ending of a pregnancy prematurely.)

So, it’s ok to kill them because they MIGHT NOT survive? Great reasoning.
^^
My answer, depending on the situation yes. Great reasoning? No, but in the real world the absolute optimal situation rarely, if ever happens. There are medical conditions such as a detached placenta, ectopic pregnancies, ruptured amniotic sac, among many others that cause a doctor to reccommend an abortion.

janetshusbsaid

To Enkill: I believe that Kay is saying that a foetus’ life must be accorded greater legal, moral and religious consideration that either the mother’s life or the real life conditions surrounding the present situation of the mother. I believe that Kay’s god has told her that he has a plan worked out for situations such as this. Because this religious belief has worked so well for Kay that she feels that everybody should be legally compelled to follow her belief. She is having a very difficult time understanding that our Constitution protects her belief but not her desire to make her belief into law. She appears not to have read about our historical separation of church and state. And she appears to have no concept of and the legal and ethical implications of what she is advocating. She has no sense of boundaries between herself, her religion and the rest of America.

Basically I see it like this, the pro-lifers want everyone to see this black and white world were there is a definate good and evil. In reality the world operates in shades of grey. There is no real black or white, since the concepts of good and evil boil down to an individual’s point of view. All we really have is what is against the laws of our society and things that are unlawful. I’m against the pro-life camp, mainly because a lot of the public figures in the pro-life camps are hypocrates. If pro-lifers really had thier way we would see some religious based laws that would open the flood gates to a major corruption of the founding ideal of America. The actual abortion procedure would feel the effects first. Then there are other services done post-abortion that is used in other situations. It may get to the point where a woman has to prove there was 0% caffine, alcohol, drugs, ibuprofen, nicotine and other substances thought to cause miscarriages.(some have no real scientific study to it. Like not eating fish. When WIC gives Tuna to pregnant women…If you are pregnant, however I would reccomend against eating fish whose main habitat is in the Gulf of Mexico. As well as other seafood originating from the Gulf of Mexico. For obvious reasons.) But the point is if pro-lifers have their way things will get out of hand fast.

Abortions do save lives, and some procedures done and are most commonly known as procedures that follow abortions do have other applications. People like Kay are stuck with the Planned parenthood type of clinics, not recognizing that Abortions are used as valid medical treatments. These are emergancy treatments with no other option that could prevent loss of life, but it happens more often than women going into clinics. There are many real world situations that happen everyday that pro-lifers and pro-choice do not account for. There are many abortions done in hospitals to save lives. There are many situations that require a healthcare professionals to make situations that require a decision on whether or not a patient will survive, or if those injuries are too severe.

Again another example of how anti-abortion laws could cause more harm than good. Because Kay’s statement: Here’s the “staight answer” and it’s really not that complicated. It’s wrong to kill one life in order to spare another. Especially when the one killed is completely innocent AND unable to defend itself. That is what’s UNACCEPTABLE.

While the context is in regards to abortion, one can safely assume that Kay would feel this way about people in a mass casualty incident. In a perfect world, it is Unacceptable. But we don’t live in a perfect world. In my mind 90% of the patients that end up in an ambulance is “innocent And unable to defend itself.” there are 10% that was in the ambulance because they did something they knew could put them in that vehicle. But 90%..survival rates cannot be 100%. So what about those born infants, children, and adults? Is it still unacceptable to ease a persons pain when you know nothing can be done and you go to treat another critically wounded patient that you can save. There is a medical term for this process it’s called Triage. The loss of life is always a tramatic experience. Whether it is through an abortion, or for some other reason.

Enkill_Eridossaid

To Janet: I hope not, because if that is the case Kay put herself in a paradox automatically making her a hypocrit. So yes I understand where she is coming from, but when she thinks abortion she thinks of girls and women willfully going to a clinic asking for the baby to be taken out of her. That’s an obvious fact. I want to broaden her thoughts and giver her real world examples based on past professional and personal experience on this particular topic. While I personally think abortions for selfish reasons is barbaric, disgusting, and should be made illegal. If such a law was passed, I can see how it could be abused or misused. And those abuses and misuses could strip people of constitutionally protected rights.

janetshusbsaid

janetshusbsaid

I’m presenting a one time, covers all situations apology for misspelling and grammar. I’d like to blame it on the humid weather and the sticky keys but that isn’t going to explain correctly spelled words in inappropriate places. LOL

Well, I don’t think sex is always a spiritual practice;) It could be, but it is not always the case in my experience. (not personal experience, as I live sex as as much spiritual than physiological, and that’s very rare among the things you can do.)

@everyone

It’s often the case with believers of any religion or ideology, this unability to see things in shades… Sad, but it’s the same for everyone.

enkill, while I agree with the point of view that not all abortions are bad, I disagree with the fact that “convenience” abortions should be forbidden. I think that what we need is a reasonable time limit, like it’s the case at the moment. Because there will always be some people to try to eliminate the fetus, whatever is the cost. But when you give them just a bit of time to do it, you solve the problem. I agree that fetuses should have the right to live: but I think we should start this moment when the fetus is able to survive without its mother.
Good luck with Kay, it looks like I have bored her^^ At least she can’t say that I have “fled”…

janetshusbsaid

It’s been proven over and over that intelligent, realistic, age appropriate sex education and facilitated access to affordable birth control reduce the rate of abortions. It is just this type of education and access to birth control that most conservative Christians claim promote promiscuity and refuse to fund, when in fact that their “abstinence only” sex education actually increase the rate of unintended pregnancy and abortion. They are actively trying to ban the ‘morning after’ pill claiming that a fetus is being aborted. This is patently untrue. The people in the fore front of this movement know this is not scientifically possible but have convinced followers and believers that it is true. Last time I looked hypocrisy was not one of the recommended biblical virtues.

I agree with Janet, the less we make it taboo the less it will actually happen. Sex is enjoyable, a small percentage of the want us to believe that sex should only be to two people who love each other blah, blah, blah…Which is fine when you are talking to grade school and middle school kids. So once your child goes on into high school, I think an honest and open conversation on the topic should be brought up. Getting Pregnant and abortion is among part of the “best case scenario’s” when it comes to sex. We really need to talk to kids about Venereal Diseases when it comes to sex. I think that’s a more important topic to speak about than getting pregnant.

@Hors, The process itself is barbaric, especially when the fetus is formed. There are other options to an abortion when the fetus is formed and movement starts to happen. Adoption is a very viable option. I know this is about abortion, but really it’s all interconnected. But despite my own personal feelings, I do not condemn those who go through with the convenience abortion. To make convenience abortions illegal would open up the floodgates making all forms of abortion illegal. I feel the current restrictions on abortion in the State of Florida do not impose on constitutional rights of the citizens that live there. Utah on the other hand, well that state is just a mess of craziness. I do feel convenience abortions should be illegal, but that is my own personal opinion. One that if it was realized, I would be more angry than relieved. Mainly because even though I would agree with the law, it doesn’t mean I think such laws should be passed. The statement was supposed to show that.

I agree with Janet and Enkill, sex is a pleasure that like every other pleasure, is better enjoyed when educated^^ AIDS is still hanging around, and abstinence, while in theory the best way, don’t work because it’s against nature, especially for teenagers… Let’s recognize, when I was a teen I had only sex in mind^^
I think that breaking the taboo and making sex less “forbidden” would lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs. A good way would be to have some sex-ed porn movies, showing every step and what happens exactly in reality (not like in usual x-rated movies, who are totally unrealistic and can give bad ideas to unexperienced teenagers). There’s already this in manga (Step-Up Love Story, which I recomend), why not in movie?^^

@Enkill

Yes, the process is not very nice, but I think that until the fetus can be considered as an individual human, it’s the same as killing an animal or a part of yourself.
I also prefer adoption.
I’m sorry I don’t know about the legislations in the USA, what are they?^^
I also think that a relative number of “convenience” abortion should be allowed, for the sake of all the others. And in fact, lots of “convenience” abortions would happen whatever the cost is, even if it could result in the death of the mother, so therefore they should be authorized, to my mind. I don’t really agree with them, but I think it’s a lesser evil.
Like you, I think that the law we have at the moment is convenient.

@Kay

In fact, on this subject we already had a discussion that ended in litterature, that’s why I was saying I got you bored;)

Rosesaid

Horsservice,😉 back at ya. You’re right, sex isn’t always a spiritual practice. But it certainly can be. Those who think it’s only about reproduction constrain it an awful lot. I also really appreciate you pointing out that the world is a complicated place, where moral decisions are not always clear cut. Nice to have a thoughtful adult in the conversation.

Enkill-Eridos, thanks for bringing facts and reason to the conversation, especially about sex ed and contraception. One of the frustrating things about the anti-choice community is their hypocrisy on the subject. They’re not against abortions so much as they are against people having control of their own lives.

Just read a funny book, “Sh*t My Dad Says.” It has this great quote in it: “It’s never the right time to have kids, but it’s always the right time for screwing. God’s not a dumb shit. He knows how it works.”

It’s clear to me that the way nature works is to make the possibility of reproduction, shall we say, widely available. That doesn’t make it obligatory.

I actually disagree with what the term “convenience” abortions. Not that they don’t occur, sometimes. But I think most women faced with an unplanned pregnancy give it a lot more thought than that, and I don’t think children should even be in the category of “convenient” or “inconvenient.”

janetshusbsaid

“Let’s recognize, when I was a teen I had only sex in mind^^” LOL You and every other teen. The fact is we are biologically programmed to reproduce in the late teen years but culturally admonished to wait until marriage at mid twenties, talk about cognitive dissonance: nature (god?) is saying “yes” and society is saying “no siree, you slutty little teens”. What makes it worse and creates more unwanted pregnancies is the refusal to recognize that there WILL be sex in the teen years and ‘abstinence only’ sex-ed prevents teens from handling their sexuality in an intelligent, responsible ways.

Well, the sexual problems of the world will have to be solved without me …………… I’m off to a weaving workshop for a week. Catch you all later.

kay~mssaid

And women are able to fight to get their way… unlike the unborn. That’s the fundamental differences between the two. Both are living beings, unique individuals with a life promised to them BOTH but the unborn are unable to defend their rights, they are unable to protect themselves… so the women win; their rights are preserved and as a direct result of that preservation, the unborn’s are not. That’s your STUPID SELFISH “argument”. Which I am “pretty sick of”.

As for the other ridiculous point…. until their is conception, there is no individual unique life.

“You’ve said several times that there are acceptable reasons to kill, anyway. To secure human rights. To secure liberty. To defend one’s life.”

But not at the expense of the innocent, where THEIR life and liberty are DENIED.

And to ignorantly assume that because I am not for a woman’s “right” (note quotation marks) to choose that means I am not for equal rights under the law for women is also STUPID. I don’t hate women…I am a woman and I LOVE and greatly ADMIRE women who have the integrity to not take the life of their child no matter what dificulties it brings them. Please stop that pathetic desperate liberal practice of twisting words (I didn’t say they have “no rights”) because you are without a valid argument. You aren’t fooling anyone with these attempts.

“You completely accept the thousands and thousands of women’s unnecessary deaths related to pregnancy around the world. Women are just guilty little Eves, anyway, right? Fetuses are “innocent;” women are “guilty.” ”

I don’t know how much longer I can deal with (and waste my time with) your “reasoning” (not much longer)…

If I “accept” thousands of women’s deaths then that means that YOU accept thousands of unborn babies deaths. And that you don’t want to accept that those unborn babies are the most innocent doesn’t change that fact.. ok? And THAT’S what reasoning is… thoughts based on FACT…NOT on what you deem to be fact… sorry about that.

“Maybe next time, they’ll be born male and allowed to survive sexual maturity.”

“You keep dragging men into it, not us.”

YOU keep dragging men into it. It is, more than anything with liberal women, about men not “controlling” women. You all are so blinded by your pride and ego that you cannot even see the horrific and tragic casualties of your “noble cause”. “noble”.. the hypocrisy makes me want to throw up.

“Um, no, dear. As you can see from the articles, rape in war is often used deliberately as a weapon, in a wide-spread assualt against TENS OF THOUSANDS of women in short periods. Some “exception.” Rape in war is a spoil of war, and it happens in every war, every where, through out history… no exception. ”

No, apparently you don’t understand basic math.

I’ve got to move on now.. if you do happen to present any valid points in the future I’ll make an effort to respond to those.

kay~mssaid

janetshusb said
July 9, 2010 at Friday, July 9, 2010
Please, please take a course in embryology at a state university before you post any more views about reproduction. Follow that up with a quickie course in Constitutional Law.

janetshusb said
July 9, 2010 at Friday, July 9, 2010
To Horsservice, Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful post on the subject from another country.

Now, I have to ask.. did you check to make sure Hors had taken a course in embryology at a state university and a quickie course in constitutional law?

So, apparently it’s only people that agree with your view who should be “allowed” to give their opinion without any formal education. Got it. What a joke.

“What you have is a religious belief about reproduction.”

No, I am willing to leave God out of this, and still prove that your/ the pro choice stance is wrong.

Abortion is killing of innocent life. It’s that simple. Abortion stops a beating heart. why is that so hard to comprehend?

“But to go swanning around telling others that life begins when you and your god say it does ..”

From Wikipedia:

“Very early miscarriages—those that occur before the sixth week LMP (since the woman’s Last Menstrual Period)—are medically termed early pregnancy loss[2] or chemical pregnancy.[3] Miscarriages that occur after the sixth week LMP are medically termed clinical spontaneous abortion.[2]

In medical contexts, the word “abortion” refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced.”

I posted this to point out that the embryo/ fetus is alive. This is life.. a miscarriage (or abortion) is the DEATH of the embryo or fetus. Your argument that life hasn’t begun is a scientific falsehood.

It is what YOU WANT to believe but science disagrees with you. Twisting words and terminology CANNOT change that fact. And also the fact that that embryo is UNIQUE… and individual.. individual heart etc. And if you “argue” that that life is dependent on you so therefore it isn’t an individual and can be disposed of, well let me just say that doesn’t help your cause, it only makes you appear even more cold hearted.

“janetshusb said
July 10, 2010 at Saturday, July 10, 2010
To Enkill: I believe that Kay is saying that a foetus’ life must be accorded greater legal, moral and religious consideration that either the mother’s life or the real life conditions surrounding the present situation of the mother.”

Not “greater”.. I don’t know how you come to that reasoning. They are just entitled to their life the same as you and I are and have been granted. What is not balanced or equal is the repercussions of each decision.. the pro life stance carries the repercussion of the inconvenience of 9 months… your stance carries the repercussion of the loss of an entire life. The fetus “accorded GREATER consideration” by allowing it to have the life promised to them? Something you already have? Really? It just seems that way to you because you and all pro choice women only see YOUR point of view, that’s all that interests you.

kay~mssaid

Triplettam, I appreciate your sincere response and I wasn’t “angry” in my last response any more than I usually am, which isn’t really “angry” but “frustrated”. Believe it or not I welcome (and even enjoy) opposing views but yes, it does get frustrating when I feel that I’ve successfully proven my view and then find that it went no where… in one ear and out the other so to speak.

Yes, you are right, the subject of abortion is a defining issue with me. And that is why I usually generalize about liberals, because they overwhelmingly are pro choice. And also with just about every other issue liberals do seem to hold the same views right down the line. (hey, great song).

This is the thing with abortion today… the people I’ve debated with on this subject and especially recently here, have stated that what’s being aborted is not a person, it’s a bunch of cells. And when I debate, I’m generally referring to the other end of that spectrum.. the formed fetus. I’ve acknowledged that when in the very early stages abortion… before a heart is beating basically, it is more of a moral/ religious issue and I can see how a non religious argument can be made for legal abortion. But what I’ve noticed over and over and over is how the pro choicers NEVER acknowledge the actual valid argument for what is going on in the later stages of an abortion. You all just close your eyes to these FACTS. That, to me is just blatant deliberate ignorance, denial and dishonesty. And a willing acceptance of what is happening to the most innocent. Yes, it is a defining issue with me. To me, it’s such hypocrisy when the left claims that they care about the less fortunate and that the right doesn’t..it just doesn’t “gel” with their pro choice stance… AT ALL. It’s a blatant and obscene contradiction… HOW CAN IT NOT BE??? HOW??

It boggles my mind that I have yet to hear someone on the left offer a compromise… that abortion laws maybe should be more restrictive. And should stop at the point where something that is living (has a beating heart) is KILLED. I have not come across anyone who’s ever been willing to compromise.. it’s just not an option. The main argument on the left is the protection of “rights” of the woman. Without ANY consideration for the OTHER life that is directly affected. What is really being argued here is not life vs non life but more the “value” of the lives involved. Not unlike what is going to happen when our health care is run by the government… those whose life is deemed the most valuable will receive the limited funds for treatment and the others will be left to die. Which is unconstitutional btw.

Pro choice people won’t admit that this is the case, they’d rather pretend that a fetus is not a life, that it isn’t living. When the real issue is that it’s just not deemed as “valuable” or “important” as the one who is in control and has the power. It’s really a form of tyranny. How hypocritical that women claim that they don’t want to be “tyrannized” or “oppressed” by men. How ironic.

As for your “solution” that you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into, I think it’s a great idea.. it’s kind of like the idea that if everyone gives just one dollar we could end world hunger or something like that.. I don’t know why we still have world hunger and other similar problems that are the result of poverty. And there are programs now that give aid to women in this situation. Thank goodness this country still has strong Christian ministries that do help people in all kinds of situations. I don’t think the problem is that there is no help available for those that decide not to have an abortion.

As for my role, I am comfortable right where I am. I do acknowledge that I could do more (and I could do it better) as I’m sure most of us could but at least I’m doing something. There really aren’t a lot of people combating this aggressive global liberal movement. And I think I’m doing a fairly good job of pointing out the problems with this ideology.

Not enough people are doing this. The liberals (and organizations like planned Parenthood etc) have made it so that a woman can get an abortion so easily. Society, the media and entertainment industry, has brainwashed women into believing that it’s like going to the dentist and having a tooth removed. We are a society that is easily brainwashed and molded by our surroundings and in the process, the GOOD, strong, self sustaining values that we have are being pushed aside. I just might be causing some woman (or women) to rethink a decision they are about to make that will affect them for the rest of their life and also that of their child. Maybe help them look at the situation in a way that they haven’t before.. a way other than what society today, thru those liberaly biased forums that influence us on a daily basis, promotes.

“I also think that the fund could provide for condoms to be given out at every high school (why some people are against that and then are against abortion is beyond me; ”

It’s because the ultimate problem, the root cause of all of these problems is a lack of morals. That is what children in school need to be given.. a moral foundation. Giving condoms out is a complete contradiction. It is giving the opposite message. The problem truly is in our mindset. It really is either a promotion and adherence to morals or the alternatives that often have severe consequences (condom or no condom).

Following the guidance of the Bible is the BEST way to avoid social problems. These other “remedies” are just “band aids”. The emotional damage and often physical damage will still occur at a higher rate than if we would just make the right choices to begin with.

And the ultimate proof to this line of thinking is the acceptance of the murder of innocent life. It’s accepted more and more. And we now have a president that wants to make it MORE accepted and EASIER to obtain and at later stages. This is the road that weakened morals takes us down (and DOWN is an especially applicable word here). Societies without good moral standards never survive.. that’s been proven thru out history.

kay~mssaid

Hors, you said: “Setting the limit about when a foetus becames a human being is a very difficult thing, since conception is a continuous process, but I think that the limit “being able to live without the mother” is a rather good one.”

It’s not a good one. What that says is that because the fetus/ baby is dependent that it’s then “ok” to kill it. How horrible when you think about it. When they need you the most, you kill them.

But as for the legal aspect, when the baby is born, is it any less dependent on it’s mother for survival?? It isn’t. The argument is that it’s not physically independent before it’s born. But then, there are many many born people who are not physically independent either. And it would be a violation of their civil liberties to take away any of their rights.

I see that “cut off point” as nothing but an excuse. And a pretty despicable one at that. It just egregiously adds to the whole tragedy of the situation.

“Taking decisions that affect everyone’s life based on religious beliefs is WRONG.”

That’s why I can (and do) argue this issue without involving religion.

“Could you start considering people as individual beings with their own opinions rather than only representative of a group with uniform and rigid beliefs (which you very often invent by the way), here it is “pro-choice”, but this could also apply to “liberals” or others.”

Well, I can try but you all do make it hard when your individual views all match. It’s just easier to lump you all together.🙂

Everyone here is pro choice. Some of you (well, actually all of you I think) say that you are “against” abortion but still argue for it’s legality, so, that makes you pro choice.

EE, your scenario of the pregnant mother is a rare unique situation. Ideally, a Christian would put it in God’s hands. God does have plans for us contrary to what liberal atheists want to think (or cannot comprehend).

As for the emergency situation, it’s not quite the same thing. The situations I am talking about are where the woman makes the decision, not the physician based on the one who has the best chance of survival.

KAY HAS A NERVOUS BREAKDOWNsaid

Hors Servicesaid

I will only answer to my part^^ But you should answer the people you talk to on the original page. This is a blog, visitors should be able to follow the debate.

“It’s not a good one. What that says is that because the fetus/ baby is dependent that it’s then “ok” to kill it. How horrible when you think about it. When they need you the most, you kill them.”

We (as the society, not “liberals”) kill them while they have no conscience, no formed personnality, before they become “people”. Do you prefer that we abandon them after they have been born?

“But as for the legal aspect, when the baby is born, is it any less dependent on it’s mother for survival?? It isn’t.”

It is faaar less dependent on it’s mother for survival. And for example, abandoned or mistreated babies can be raised by the State.

“The argument is that it’s not physically independent before it’s born. But then, there are many many born people who are not physically independent either.”

How many of them are still linked to a PERSON?

“And it would be a violation of their civil liberties to take away any of their rights.”

Yes.

(I would also answer another stuff…: “the pro life stance carries the repercussion of the inconvenience of 9 months…” No, it doesn’t. Again, you failed to read everything: what do you make of the mothers who are not able to carry a baby, like this 9-yo brasilian child? Or those mentally instable? Or those who cannot afford to have reduced abilities for 9 months? (because IT’S HAPPENING.))

“That’s why I can (and do) argue this issue without involving religion.”

Good! At least! One little step for the woman, one giant leap for the debate^^

“Well, I can try but you all do make it hard when your individual views all match. It’s just easier to lump you all together. :)”

Then, answer to us as a group of people: “Hors”, “Janetshusb”, “Enkill”… You can say “guys”,”X, Y and Z”,”To everyone”… And if you read us carefully, we do have very different opinions. For example, Enkill is closer to your view.

“Everyone here is pro choice. Some of you (well, actually all of you I think) say that you are “against” abortion but still argue for it’s legality, so, that makes you pro choice.”

Not exactly, no. For example, I’m pro-choice on a moral basis, but I think that more care should be taken to 1) prevent this situations 2) educate the women who have the possibility to spare the child to other options: adoption, gift of fetus or embryo…

“EE, your scenario of the pregnant mother is a rare unique situation.”

No, it’s not so rare.

“Ideally, a Christian would put it in God’s hands. God does have plans for us contrary to what liberal atheists want to think (or cannot comprehend).”

Aaaaaaand here is God, who is coming back again / And with him, liberals, atheists, and gratuitous agressions! You practically made it until the end, this time, and it could even be considered as not-exactly-in-the-debate, so good job^^ Next post, no mention of God, ok? I’m looking forward to it!

“As for the emergency situation, it’s not quite the same thing. The situations I am talking about are where the woman makes the decision, not the physician based on the one who has the best chance of survival.”

But you talk about “abortion” as a whole, while there’s multiple particular cases… Few women are throwing away babies like socks. Like Rose says, there’s practically always a choice made.

doriansaid

if we leave morality and religion out of an abortion debate there won’t be a debate.
and there shouldn’t be, unless “convenience” abortions increase. then it’s an irresponsibility issue. but who is to determine what an abortion for convenience is? the inconvenienced ones alone. people who have sex should just be more responsible about birth control. so we’re back on the abortion topic. the origin of life next?
kay and hors, marathon champs.

janetshusbsaid

Morality is flexible depending on culture and religion. Ethics are, for most purposes, immutable. To define the beginning of a human life anti-abortionists use morality as the foundation of their argument and not ethics. Anti-abortionists have a basic misunderstanding of the difference between morality and ethics. Along with the courses in embryology and constitutional law a short course in Philosophy 101 wouldn’t be a bad idea.

The weaving workshop was great. I see you haven’t solved all the world’s problems while I was gone. What a disappointment! LOL

Hors Servicesaid

I also have trouble to see the difference between moral and ethic. Can you elaborate?

@Kay

“Just more liberal “reasoning”.”

No, just more janetshusb reasoning.

“You would PREFER that I (and all pro life proponents) always leave religion out of it for obvious reasons…. but sorry, that’s not going to happen.”

What obvious reasons? Separation of church and state, freedom of religion for example?
To me, you just leave religion aside just in the case where law is involved, because it concerns other people. You can have as much religious arguments against abortion that you want, for example, but when it comes to law allowing abortion or not, I think that your arguments shouldn’t be religious.

kay~mssaid

Due to my religious pandering?? The subject of the post was religion. Someone made claims about scriptures in the Bible that were not true and I proved it. The HP is corrupt and dishonest. There was nothing wrong with those comments and they were approved the night before… but the next day they were gone… I don’t get it. And that’s happened several times now.

One woman (a “superuser”) made a comment to a conservative about how he was too stupid to have a job.. only she said… “your to stupid to have a job”… it was hilarious and I pointed out her STUPID mistakes and so did another person… those comments were posted but the next day all 3 comments were gone.

The Huffington Post and their “moderators” seem to be “par for the course” … an accurate representation of the left.

princessxxxsaid

the subject was, “glenn beck says jews killed jesus”. then you went and made stupid comments like, yes, the jews did kill jesus and i can prove it. plus you said that john was standing closer to the cross at the cruxifiction. wha????? were you there? oh, that’s right, you were there, i forgot, you ARE jeezus.

kams, you and mel gibson and bill keller, the father, son and holy ghost.

don’t feel bad, they scrubbed a post where i called you an idiot. so i replaced idiot with childish and it passed.

Rosesaid

“To define the beginning of a human life anti-abortionists use morality as the foundation of their argument and not ethics.”

Actually, they use an appeal to morality, very narrowly defined. But in truth they’re just using guilt and shame as the foundation of their argument. We’ve already seen how somehow, a clump of insentient cells (the blastocyst) is “innocent” while a 13 year old virgin raped by her uncle is not.

Then they follow it up with religion. How shocked some of them would be to find that there are Christian sects that support the right to choose. And I’m still waiting to hear what Jesus said about abortion.

janetshusbsaid

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good vs. bad, noble vs. ignoble, right vs. wrong, and matters of justice, love, peace, and virtue. (from Wikipedia)

I agree, it’s difficult to separate the two and many dictionaries use one to define the other and I too meld the two in conversation. Here is my best shot. Differentiating morals from ethics extends the questions about morals into the area of value, logic, justification and validation of a particular moral point. Ethics are global; morals are specific. The problem comes when people try to call their social customs, taboos, religious dogmas and prejudices morals. They are not morals.

Using a manufacturing analogy: Ethics is the machinery, morals are the product. Let’s say you need a winter coat and you use the sewing machine to produce it. Later on your situation changes and you need a bathing suit and go back to the sewing machine to produce it. The overcoat and bathing suit represent your set of morals but you needed the sewing machine (ethics) to produce these garments (morals). The overcoat and bathing suit are very suitable for specific situations but in order to dress for all situations the sewing machine is essential. Similarly, a moral value may cover one situation beautifully but not another and ethics gives you the capacity to generate logical, consistent thoughts leading to a moral conclusion covering a that situation.

It’s a difficult subject and philosophers constantly debate the difference. Perhaps a wiser head than mine might explain it better: (Ethics vs. Morals: Not As Easy As It Seems: November 15th, 2008 by Elijah Weber. From the website Everyday Ethics)

“Morals, quite simply, are beliefs about right and wrong conduct. They are often based on sociological conditions and learned behavior, but not always. They do not require reason, consistency, or thorough analysis in their initial shaping or practical application. One can make a statement about morals without making a statement about ethics. If something is immoral, it may or may not be appropriate to call it unethical. I can believe that lying is wrong because my grandmother told me it was, and that is what I believe. No further justification is required. Ethics, on the other hand, is a reason based, cumulative system of moral decision making. It is built upon one or a few basic principles and requires that we be thorough, honest, and comprehensive in making statements about right and wrong. Ethics is about building the kind of world (everybody will want to) live in, and developing a consistent process by which to achieve this. Ethics is an advanced expression of morality.
For example, let us say that I believe abortion is wrong because all human life is valuable, but I also believe that we should punish murderers by putting them to death. These points of view could be held simultaneously from a position of simple moral belief, but would at a minimum require additional justification before being accepted as a reasonable ethical position. Morality is simply a statement about right and wrong. Abortion is wrong, the death penalty is right. ….. Moral belief does not require that we are reasonable or justified, but ethics does. An ethic-ist would have to deal with the contradiction regarding value of human life that is created by holding these positions simultaneously.”

kay~mssaid

There IS no differences between “morals” and “ethics” as shown by all definition sources. Clearly it is those with progressive liberal ideologies (as shown by you and Elijah Weber) who want to insist that there is a difference and that it somehow justifies their stances …. Sorry, there isn’t and it doesn’t.

“Differentiating morals from ethics extends the questions about morals into the area of value, logic, justification and validation of a particular moral point.”

There you go…”value”.

It is “reasoned” to be “ethical” to terminate a living, unique life that can never be recaptured because it’s “VALUE” (no less an opinion than a moral judgment) is not as great as the (more powerful) one who seeks convenience.

Got it. That seems very immoral to me. I know that is my “opinion” of morality but I’m ready to debate that anytime.

Ethics are based on opinions just as morals are. Morality seeks no less to differentiate between right and wrong. The definition of morality is NO DIFFERENT than that of ethics.

princessxxxsaid

KAY, YOU ARE SUCH A RACIST. I SEE THAT YOU MADE A COMMENT SAYING THAT MARK WILLIAMS THE RACIST TEABAGGER HAS A POINT. FORTUNATLEY HP HAS THE COMMON DECENCY TO SCRUB YOUR HATE FILLED RACIST RANTS. THANK JEEZUS. GAWD, YOU ARE ONE STUPID HAG.

janetshusbsaid

kay~mssaid

Here’s my comment in it’s entirety and FULL CONTEXT… (a concept that you will never get).
Clearly Mark Williams is not thinking of the best interests of the Tea Party and doesn’t belong in the position they’ve given him in the movement. He’s a “shock jock” and should just stick to radio. But with that being said, he’s got a point.

He, along with every other person who supports the Tea Party movement, is SICK AND TIRED of being called racist. It’s so pathetic and obvious that the left have no valid arguments to the ACTUAL issues being addressed by the TP movement. So, they instead try to divert.. and divide and mislead and deceive. Again, it’s pathetic.

It people on the left would just apply their math skills they could see that the few racists that do unfortunately infiltrate the TP movement are a FRINGE MINORITY. Please, if you all don’t know what that means… look it up!

Williams’ point is that just as there are racists present in the movement there ARE people on the left (including in the NAACP) who do believe that they are entitled to what others have worked for. That’s pretty much the position of the left. And it’s not what this country was founded on and why it is and has been the best country in the world.

Van Jones is a perfect example of this leftist ideology.. And he says it out loud… “give them the wealth!” Key word “give”. Invisible words.. “TAKE and…”. The left’s offenses are more blatant than any random signs in a crowd at a Tea Party event. That is what Mark Williams is pointing out. The blatant corrupt ideology that is being hypocritically ignored and denied.

The right are not against helping the disadvantaged but it is not the government’s role or place to force us to help by taking from one to give to another. It’s our own personal responsibility. Giving the government the power to do so is asking for trouble. It is exactly the reason that this country was founded.. to be free of government oppression and control.

The Tea Party is full of African Americans who don’t want anything given to them. They want to be treated the same and be given the same opportunities. And they see the injustice in “spreading the wealth”. They want no part of it.

doriansaid

” The problem comes when people try to call their social customs, taboos, religious dogmas and prejudices morals. They are not morals.”
i agree.
when those elements come into play, it’s synonymous to value judgments – strictly subjective. what’s immoral to kay is not immoral to princess.

kay~mssaid

” The problem comes when people try to call their social customs, taboos, religious dogmas and prejudices morals. They are not morals.”

Those things are not morals, but they are based on moral beliefs (except for “prejudices”(?))

Morals and ethics are both subjective. You all are somehow trying to insist that ethics are based on “facts” and morals aren’t. And even if you succeeded that still wouldn’t support the pro choice stance. The FACT remains that it is killing of a unique individual life. Morals AND ethics do not support that… no matter how much you try to apply “logic, justification and validation (and ‘value judgments’?)” to that.

Noun 1. value judgement – an assessment that reveals more about the values of the person making the assessment than about the reality of what is assessed

“Differentiating morals from ethics extends the questions about morals into the area of value, logic, justification and validation of a particular moral point.”

Rosesaid

Oh dear, clearly it’s pointless and I should go out and pick up a loom or a ukelele, but I just can’t stand some of these statements, honestly.

“It is “reasoned” to be “ethical” to terminate a living, unique life that can never be recaptured…”

Kay, a woman is a living, unique life that can never be recaptured. If valuing unique, living persons is the basis of your argument, you should be able to easily grasp that it’s the basis of the pro-choice argument, as well. And you do, really, because you realize you have to come up with some reason the life of the developing fetus is more “worthy” than the life of a fully formed, sentient, unique individual who happens to be female.

There is more to life than biological function. There us more to innocence than not yet having a thought, due to not yet having a brain.

This IS a question of ethics, and not morals, precisely because if you give it an honest assessment, you have to admit that you’re willing to kill people who are unique and living – women – in order to POSSIBLY save embryos that are unique and living. That is an ethical dilemma, isn’t it? Furthermore, you’re willing to let women suffer terribly to prevent the “suffering” of a being without a fully functioning nervous system.

You think it’s somehow moral to create a society that simply throws up its hands and says “Let God figure it out. Sorry about your wife – daughter – mother – aunt – sister dying a painful, wholly preventable death, but that’s God’s Plan; I had nothing to do with it!”

I bet you wouldn’t likewise say, “let’s close all the trauma centers, operating rooms and ICUs because it’s God’s will people die of accidents, cancer and heart attacks,” would you? Why not? What about a gang banger who’s been shot? Not an innocent, after all… we should let them bleed out in the streets since it’s God’s will, shouldn’t we?

It’s intellectual laziness of the worst sort. To add insult to injury, you then pretend God did not give women free will, or, if She did, women are sinful for exercising it. Well, let’s say you’re right; why is it the government’s business? Why is it yours? Isn’t it in God’s hands?

Given a thousand different examples that show you that women are not all immoral sluts who think babies are kind of a downer, you ignore every single one. You call rape, incest (often the same thing, suicidal depression, cancer, anencephaly (a fetus without a brain) “exceptions.” (Talk about convenient!) Look – it doesn’t matter if it’s one exception or 1,00,000, it begs the ethical question, and an honest person would know that.

The bottom line is that you can only continue your argument by pretending that women have no unique reproductive functioning, that developing fetuses are alive all by themselves, and that womens’ suffering is regrettable but acceptable.

You keep going on and on about FACTS but you stick your fingers in your ears and shout “LA LA LA” when the FACT that the fetus is NOT alive by itself is explained to you.

Your morals are to say abortion is always wrong. Fine, don’t have one. The ethics of the situation elude you completely, however.

“The FACT remains that it is killing of a unique individual life.”

No, the FACT remains that it is a unique individual life, a woman, deciding not to GIVE LIFE to offspring she doesn’t want. Her reasons are her business, not yours; she has that right because she is a human being with God given free will – uterus and all.

Wow Kay..you really do not know what ethics are..ethics and morals go hand in hand…ethics are based on morals.

eth·ics [eth-iks]
–plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Let’s also look at the word freedom.

free·dom [free-duhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.
ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend’s library.
17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.Compare necessity (def. 7).

Now number 2, the thing that the tea bag federation wants us to believe is freedom shouldn’t be in there. I will tell you why regulation and you know laws when it pertains to corporations. You know like what the Republican party did, in giving tax breaks to companies that weakened our economy by outsourcing jobs from American soil to third world countries. I mean lay-offs is not a new thing, it’s happening more and more. The American people is suffering because people use number 2 as a propaganda tool. I’m not saying the government should control every corporation, but there should be more laws that protect the things our country is based on. I mean corporations are buying out small businesses based on patents that could hurt the companies profits. Things that could benefit American society in a profound way. I mean you cannot honestly tell me all of this countries innovations can be seen on late night infomercials. There is huge corruption within the government as we speak, but what do Americans want to debate about? Abortion, and it is never ending.

Here is a summary of how this debate will continue, because this debate on this blog hasn’t changed on this blog. Both sides are compelling, but its in a moral and ethical grey area. Because beginning of life is actually a matter of opinion. Scientists cannot come to a common consensus..even anti-abortionists debate amongst themselves about it. Currently in the State of Florida life begins when the fetus can live outside of the womb, its called viability. Whether or not you agree does not matter it is the law. Florida’s current abortion laws I believe are fair. late term abortions are illegal, the Department of Medicine does track down and prosecute those that break that law.

Of course let me ask the questions that republicans, don’t want to answer. What happens when the Anti-Abortionists get Abortion illegal will it stop there? The answer is no, if Abortion is treated like murder then what’s to stop these Anti-Abortionists to do the same thing Israel is doing? Since many pro-life groups are pushing that Abortion is the latest holocaust we can only assume that the Anti-Abortionists will create a secret police that hunts down those who ever had an Abortion in America. Like the nation of Israel this organization will break laws just to find an unimportant person, that deserted during the French invasion….err I’m not anti-semitic, I am against the main purpose of the Mossad which is to hunt and find anyone who ever wore a german uniform during the reign of Hitler. They even hunt deserters that changed from Germany to the Allied forces because they felt Hitler was a traitor. They still try to prosecute those heroes. My point is that we should resist to allow religion to be the main reason we make decisions. We should also think of ways to improve all of humanity, not ways to destroy it.

doriansaid

God gave everyone free will but when it comes to a woman (this includes a 13 year old girl raped and made pregnant by her father)making her own choice, religious anti-abortionists and their morals and dogmas overrule.

kay~mssaid

“Kay, a woman is a living, unique life that can never be recaptured. If valuing unique, living persons is the basis of your argument, you should be able to easily grasp that it’s the basis of the pro-choice argument, as well. And you do, really, because you realize you have to come up with some reason the life of the developing fetus is more “worthy” than the life of a fully formed, sentient, unique individual who happens to be female. ”

It’s the basis of the pro choice argument too? You mean either the unborn dies or the woman dies? That is not what is at issue here is it? If it comes down to one or the other clearly a choice has to be made. But an overwhelming majority of abortions do not fit into that category and that is what I’m debating here.

The idea is to keep BOTH alive. Why do you keep coming up with these silly, baseless arguments?

Your argument seems to be that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy because there is a risk of dying? Do you go out of your home? Do you get into a car? Do you cross the street? And “what if” arguments are not valid defenses. It’s not ok to kill someone because you think they might kill you first. I do understand your fear and if it is that strong, don’t do anything that might result in pregnancy. That’s the answer.. that’s the responsible action to take…not taking away another’s life if a pregnancy does happen.

You are right… I do believe that God has plans for us and they do not include us breaking His commandments… pure and simple. But again, leaving God out of it, I still argue strongly that it is immoral and unethical to end a life once it’s begun. That unique person is promised a life just as you were. They deserve it just as much as you do.

And what we allow in society today is grossly immoral and unethical as far as abortion goes. Many years from now we will be looked upon as a barbaric society just as we look back in history at those who we believed did barbaric (but acceptable to them at the time) things.

“I bet you wouldn’t likewise say, “let’s close all the trauma centers, operating rooms and ICUs because it’s God’s will people die of accidents, cancer and heart attacks,” would you? Why not? What about a gang banger who’s been shot? Not an innocent, after all… we should let them bleed out in the streets since it’s God’s will, shouldn’t we? ”

Once again, a silly argument… why wouldn’t God want these people to be helped? Who’s rights are being violated if they get help? Who’s life is lost if they get help?

“It’s intellectual laziness of the worst sort. To add insult to injury, you then pretend God did not give women free will, or, if She did, women are sinful for exercising it. Well, let’s say you’re right; why is it the government’s business? Why is it yours? Isn’t it in God’s hands?”

Yet again you’ve shown that this issue is about men vs women more than anything else with you… it’s so tragic for the unborn to be caught up in your (the feminists) egotistical fight… it’s sickening. can I ask.. where in the Bible is God a “she”? No where? Ok, then exactly what reference are you using to support your insistence that God is a “she”.. what? Your own reasoning? Some other feminist’s reasoning? What a joke.

Btw… you have a choice to not get pregnant.. men who are drafted in war don’t have a choice to not go. 99% of the time, you lose 9 months of your life.. in war the odds are a lot worse that a man loses the remainder of his life.

I can argue the whiney and pathetic feminist issue too. It’s disgusting that you all are willing to sacrifice fully developed unborn innocent babies to protect your precious “rights”.

“Your morals are to say abortion is always wrong. Fine, don’t have one. The ethics of the situation elude you completely, however. ”

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that that argument isn’t valid? I’ve already explained… is murder of another (born) person yours or my business? We should just not do it if we don’t agree with it right? …. to each his own?

I do understand your basic arguments… it’s our bodies, it’s our lives, a man (no one) shouldn’t be able to tell us what to do with our bodies. But my argument is that it still doesn’t justify the taking of innocent life. And that is what is happening. There is just no way around that.

Have you ever thought about if your mother ever contemplated having an abortion? We were granted our lives and we owe to our unborn to do the same.

kay~mssaid

“God gave everyone free will but when it comes to a woman (this includes a 13 year old girl raped and made pregnant by her father)making her own choice, religious anti-abortionists and their morals and dogmas overrule.”

Once again, free will has restrictions.. they are called laws that prevent us from harming others in using our free will. Not a hard concept.

And if that 13 yr old girl can carry her pregnancy safely, she will be much better off down the road if she gives her child life. But those “well meaning” relatives who think they know better and don’t have to live with the decision probably won’t let her.. it would be too embarassing for them.

doriansaid

kay, you are negating the rape and child abuse factor here because of your anti-abortion beliefs. wow. i would be more concerned with the life that is already there – that of the 13 year old child. who cares about embarassed relatives? what if the girl does not want to “carry her pregnancy safely”?!?
don’t answer that. this horse of a topic beaten many times before. for my next number i’ll be playing “five foot two eyes so blue” on my ukelele.

doriansaid

Rosesaid

Uh, don’t look now, there are many cases where it’s not possible to keep both alive. But you’ve already gotten the information that pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for girls and women in many countries around the world; how you call that a “baseless concern” is well beyond me.

Why wouldn’t God want these people to be helped?

Yes, the ethical question does indeed boil down to “the woman dies, or the fetus dies.” Sometimes it’s quite easy to decide, since if the woman dies, the fetus dies, too. Now, why is that? It’s a valid question; we await your response as to how a living individual could possible die because someone else does.

You do not and cannot know the circumstances of every woman; we as a society can only create a system that values women, or doesn’t.

That’s why this is a sticky subject. The only way to continue to hold your beliefs is to argue that women are not unique, individual lives, or that it doesn’t matter if they are.

Yes, I can CHOOSE to risk myself by going out of my home, getting in my car, and crossing the street. Yep, I’m at LIBERTY to do that. I can decide to risk MY life – or not. You seem to have a real problem with giving women liberty. Why?

“exactly what reference are you using to support your insistence that God is a “she”.. what? Your own reasoning? Some other feminist’s reasoning? What a joke.”

I’m sorry, is there something wrong with me having “my own reasoning?” Is it because of my genitals that my own reasoning is suspect? Did not God give me a brain to think with? Do I not have the right to my own individual relationship to God?

Yes, imagining that a spiritual being has a physical gender is strange to me. I know it helps the men in your church hold on to their power, but spiritually speaking it’s a ridiculous notion.

Let’s go with your own religious doctrine: if God created people in His own image, She also created females. Jesus had many female disciples. God also set in motion the forces that created banana slugs, who can change gender at will; and human hermaphrodites, with both male and female genitalia. Your belief that spiritual power is exclusively male has been taught to you by men, hasn’t it?

Where in the bible is God a She? “The Bible describes God as a seamstress (Gen. 3:21); possessing a womb (Jer. 31:20, Isa. 46:3-4); as a woman in labor (Deut. 32:18, Isa. 42:14 John 3:3-7); as a nursing mother (Isa. 49:15, Num. 11:11-14); as a mother with her weaned child (Ps. 121:1-2); as a comforting mother (Isa. 66:11-12, Hos. 11:1-4,8-9); as a mother bear (Hos. 13:6-8); and as a midwife (Ps. 22:9), among many other feminine images.” http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/God/GodsGender.php

It’s another topic on which you need to get a bit of education; plenty of religious traditions do not give God a gender – Judaism, for one example. Stop looking at the pointing finger (or phallus, in your case) and start looking at the moon.

“you have a choice to not get pregnant…”

Really? How about this, then? “17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Of these, 21.6% were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4% were between the ages of 12 and 17. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)”

Keep in mind, statistics on rape are notoriously unreliable, since the majority of rapes are probably not reported. But it’s estimated that “1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Gosh, we’ve come full circle, to where your God’s loving plan is for 12 year olds to be raped… and you can’t see why other people think that’s not quite morally correct. Yet you talk about “innocent” life! I guess once a twelve year old has had her vagina torn up, well, she’s not “innocent” any more, is she?

“Have you ever thought about if your mother ever contemplated having an abortion? ” Oh, yes. I’m quite certain she would have aborted me, had it been legal and accessible, had society given a good goddamn about her. This gives me little pause, since I wouldn’t have known about it, not having a brain yet. But I do know that she made her feelings quite clear on those memorable days when she threatened me with a knife, held my head under running water, slammed my head into a wall, and waved a hot iron at me with hatred in her eyes, among other manifestations of the fact that she didn’t want me but had no choice. Her behavior as a trapped human being is what made me a feminist, love.

princessxxxsaid

triplettam Commented 11 hours ago
“ah, a novel argument for kams; the non sequitar argument. I ask
for a 6th time to show me where health care reform is
unconstitutional and she gives me a lecture on Mormons. Not
only do they have very little to do with health care reform,
they are anything but liberal. Oh, but it’s not just Mormons,
it’s Mormon men, those stalwarts of unabashed liberalism.
Things get curiouser and curiouser as we fall down kams rabbit
hole. kams: goodbye. Let me explain what that means. It means
goodbye. I don’t want to talk to you anymore. You aren’t
amusing, fun or even slightly interesting. It’s sad to see
someone who has let their faith destroy their integrity. This
is not a surrender; I am conceding no point. You have won
nothing. You need not reply, because I’m not going to read it.
Do you understand this or do I need to get someone to translate
it into NUTWINGANESE? Take care. To those of you who are still
here: God Bless you. To those of you who stumbled in here by
accident: run. To my good friend Anna: after further
consideration, we have decided to let the children be who they
want to be and who they are. We will love them no matter what.
And of course you can call any one of them Honey Bruce. As I’m
sure you know, she has a big place in my heart. So do you.
Slainte everyone and take a sip for me.”

princessxxxsaid

kams Commented 10 hours ago in Politics
“You can have the last words.. goodbye to you too. Well.. just one thing.. those who preach against prejudging shouldn’t prejudge…Those who preach tolerance, should tolerate. Just a couple of thoughts. And pride IS the cause of all sin… particularly dishonesty. NO NEED TO RESPOND.

doriansaid

kams said he could have the last words but put in the last words with a projection of her own sins.
p, you’re famous on huffpo eh? just keep touching your adkob homebase, even just to share others’ reactions to kay, our other famous adkob alumni there,huh?

thanks for sharing stats facts and yourself, rose! all that makes a formidable base for you debating current topic. i like a feminist who knows scripture. Jesus the prophet was one, too.

princessxxxsaid

princessxxxsaid

kay~mssaid

“kams said he could have the last words but put in the last words with a projection of her own sins.”

No Dorian, I was talking about Triplettam. Contrary to the liberal belief that you all have exclusive “rights” to make the intolerance and prejudging accusations, you all are the biggest offenders I’ve found (and proven).

And I think that princess thinks that he’s proven that Triplettam “won” our debate by posting my response to him here… that’s because Princess is not that bright.. and neither was Triplettam. There does come a point where it is truly a waste of time to address someone’s “arguments”.

Which leads me to Rose…

I should have known that there would be “proof” in the Bible that God is a woman… your examples are extremely subjective and reaching. Let’s do it this way.. if you compare all the verses that imply that God is a “man” and all the verses that imply that God is a “woman”… I wonder which list would be longer.

And also the simple fact that He is addressed as “HE” hundreds of times in the Bible.

The real question is.. what difference does it make? Why do you need so much for God to be female? Really.. why is this feminist anti male struggle so important to you all? It’s nothing but pride and ego that is fueling your “struggle”. Your killing innocent life for the sake of women’s “rights”. It’s obvious that you’ve taken it too far. Get over yourselves.

kay~mssaid

“Uh, don’t look now, there are many cases where it’s not possible to keep both alive.

Uh…again, that is not the subject we are discussing is it? You are arguing for the “rights” of women to terminate a pregnancy for any reason right? Please stop mixing the situations in a dishonest attempt to “win” your argument.

If a women has a pregnancy that is threatening her life… CLEARLY this is a different situation… if the woman dies the fetus dies also. An OBVIOUSLY different set of circumstances.

“But you’ve already gotten the information that pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for girls and women in many countries around the world;”

And I revert back to my previous point… if the woman dies the fetus dies…it makes no sense to protect the fetus if it is certain to die later along with the woman… a different situation than what we are discussing.

And also in those same countries you should consider that the risks of the abortion procedure are probably higher also.

“Yes, I can CHOOSE to risk myself by going out of my home, getting in my car, and crossing the street. Yep, I’m at LIBERTY to do that. I can decide to risk MY life – or not. You seem to have a real problem with giving women liberty. Why? ”

I just explained that… you have the choice to not engage in acts that can result in pregnancy. You DO have the choice. As for those instances where you do not, that’s a separate situation/ debate. And it is still not justification for taking human life… two wrongs don’t make a right.

“I’m sorry, is there something wrong with me having “my own reasoning?” Is it because of my genitals that my own reasoning is suspect?”

Wow.. who brainwashed you into this paranoid way of thinking?

ANYONE who relies solely on their own reasoning when so much evidence to the contrary exists is arrogant and ignorant… that is not (LOGICAL) reasoning that applies exclusively to people with female genitalia.

“Gosh, we’ve come full circle, to where your God’s loving plan is for 12 year olds to be raped… and you can’t see why other people think that’s not quite morally correct. Yet you talk about “innocent” life! I guess once a twelve year old has had her vagina torn up, well, she’s not “innocent” any more, is she? ”

I’m completely missing how we’ve “come full circle” here. I cannot see how you can conclude that someone using their free will, that God gave them, to harm someone else is somehow His plan. I guess the problem is the inability to comprehend the definition of “free will” and how that and God’s will are two separate things.

And what your mother did to you was horrible. But that still doesn’t make me a hypocrite for arguing against the “right” to kill innocent life. I don’t know if you are capable of understanding that. Again, committing a wrong in order to avert (or “fix”) another wrong.. is wrong. Where do you get “right” in that scenario?

It wasn’t the “men” who were “wrong” for adhering to their belief that innocent life should be protected, that it is our duty as citizens to protect innocent life.

It is your mother who was wrong. That she felt trapped doesn’t excuse her actions. It was your mother who should have averted those actions that got her pregnant in the first place if she didn’t want to be. It was the adults who may have witnessed the abuse who were wrong for not taking action. It’s not the people who desire to protect innocent life who are wrong here. It’s not a male / female issue. It’s a human life issue.

doriansaid

kay~mssaid

Yes… I had the choice also and I made a mistake also, I never denied that.. and I paid for it and I didn’t kill another life in the process. I don’t try to put the blame on men for what happened to me. I don’t get your point.

princessxxxsaid

sull7754said

Hello, my name is Sullivan. I earlier had thought that Steven Weber was being a tad rude to kams on the Huffington Post, but now that I have read further of her comments, I relaize Mr. Weber was entirely correct in asking Kams to leave the conversation. Obviously she is as the other poster said, “dishonest”.

Rosesaid

“I should have known that there would be “proof” in the Bible that God is a woman… your examples are extremely subjective and reaching.”

Said the pot to the kettle… the pot who still hasn’t told us what Jesus said about abortion… which was entirely legal and regularly practiced at the time he lived.

“Let’s do it this way.. if you compare all the verses that imply that God is a “man” and all the verses that imply that God is a “woman”… I wonder which list would be longer.”

Wow. Just wow. You said that NOWHERE in the Bible is God a She. You’re wrong. Just admit that in the Bible God is also She, won’t you? You’re a she, too; it ought to make you feel better about yourself that God has not forsaken you.

Also, too, and by the way, the Bible you read was written by… men. They have a vested interest in claiming divinity is male. Such a vested interest that you don’t find the Book of Mary in your Bible, do you? Yet these is such a book.

But mainly it’s just an accident of language; Hebrew uses male and female nouns to describe things (other languages do, too). Doesn’t make God male or female. It is just as correct (or incorrect, since God is Spirit and is everywhere and everytime and in everyone) to describe God as She for purposes of discussion as it is to describe God as He. (More on this below.) The brainwashing is all yours – you’ve been taught that God = Male, and you won’t entertain another way of thinking, will you?

“Uh…again, that is not the subject we are discussing is it?”

“it makes no sense to protect the fetus if it is certain to die later along with the woman… a different situation than what we are discussing.”

Yes, it IS the situation we’re discussing. How do you know which pregnancies will lead to womens deaths? How do you know what is going on in another woman’s body, or in her life? We do know that where contraception is available and abortion is legal, many fewer women die. So, yes, that is EXACTLY the subject we’re discussing.

“And also in those same countries you should consider that the risks of the abortion procedure are probably higher also.”

Ya’ think? Scraping at yourself with a coat hanger is more dangerous than going to a licensed, trained physician? Whoda thunk it!

Look, I appreciate your basic point, believe it or not. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion, and spiritually speaking the choice is a very difficult one. But we don’t live in a perfect world. In this world I don’t believe suffering is God’s will when the means to prevent it are simple, proven and available. Not when it boils down to something so straightforward as “let the individual decide.”

“Wow.. who brainwashed you into this paranoid way of thinking?”

You said me using my own reasoning was a joke, then you call me paranoid? I was trying to make a point – I don’t think there’s a thing wrong with using my own reasoning, nor that it is a “joke,” regardless of my genitalia.

“ANYONE who relies solely on their own reasoning when so much evidence to the contrary exists is arrogant and ignorant… that is not (LOGICAL) reasoning that applies exclusively to people with female genitalia.”

I’m not relying solely on my own reasoning. I gave you examples, which (big surprise) you ignored. You dismiss entire cultures and religions because they don’t follow your beliefs, then you say it is I who is using just “my own reasoning” – ! It’s breathtaking, this ability you have to ignore every point you don’t want to think about. For instance, many languages assign gender to different things; that does not make a ship a woman, or a book a man, does it? It’s a way of speaking and writing, not an eternal truth.

An example: “In Chinese, a language with gender-neutral pronouns, a special genderless pronoun is used in reference to Divinity (roughly equivalent to IT). When translating the Bible into Chinese, using “he” to reference God was out of the question because the Chinese character for “he” contained the character “human”… To bring God to the level of man was blasphemous.

Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)”

Your very own Jesus tells you God is SPIRIT. Galatians 3:28: “…there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Muslims believe Allah is without gender, as well. Yahweh is without gender to Jews, too. So here we have Christians, Jews, and Muslims (among others) who all disagree with you that God is exclusively male. How is that not “evidence to the contrary?”

“I guess the problem is the inability to comprehend the definition of “free will” and how that and God’s will are two separate things.”

(Oh, the irony, oh my head…)

I ask you again, don’t women have a right to free will?
Obviously conceiving due to rape is not the woman’s will, and here you say it is also not God’s will, so… look, you can’t have it both ways. Either rapists have a right to reproduce with whatever woman they attack and such reproduction is God’s will; or women have a right to not reproduce because they were attacked and it isn’t their will, nor is it God’s. Make up your mind.

No shit, my mother was wrong. LOL! But so were her circumstances – I suppose she could’ve taken her four children, her limited education and her poor English and lived in abject poverty, breaking her wedding vows. There’s a part of me that doesn’t understand how she stood by while my alcoholic father did many of the things he did, including to her. I suppose she could’ve used violence to defend herself against her husband wanting to have sex without birth control, but she didn’t. That was a time when cops asked women what they did to piss off their husbands so they had to beat their wives, you know.

But at least I know she was a human being, not the Virgin Mary.

I didn’t say you were a hypocrite; you asked a question and I answered it. I’ve heard the same answer from other people who were abused as children; they wouldn’t know it if they’d been aborted, they only know what happened when they weren’t. If you’re going to argue that allowing suffering is a way of “protecting innocent life” you’ve got a very hard row to hoe with me, that’s for sure.

Anonymoussaid

kay~mssaid

First, I never claimed I was all of those virtues you listed, I don’t know how you get that assumption. What I did claim (in an indirect way) is that I am not selfish egotistical, deceptive and dishonest by making a false and DAMAGING claim that thousands upon thousands of people are racist when they are not and when there is no evidence to back that up. That is what you call a FALSE accusation. Now, are there some? yes.. no one is denying that. You all need to be more clear about your accusations. Those of you on the left need to practice what you preach… don’t judge an entire group by the actions of a few, in other words, stop being hypocrites.

“So let’s lay that one to rest.”

No, let’s not. I think you might have failed to understand my point. You acknowledged that people have a right to say what they want. So I hope that means that you acknowledge that it is not the responsibility or place for anyone in a crowd to “tell” someone else what they can and can’t say. So, therefore, concluding that one sign speaks for the entire crowd is an incorrect assumption. And also, the assumption that if anyone did say something to someone else concerning their sign, that they would immediately comply. That would also be an incorrect assumption. And further proves that one sign does not speak for the entire crowd (or 2 signs or 3 etc).

As for the sign that is posted (a banner I guess?) First, could you please tell me what this “racist” sign said? Because I’ve observed many times certain signs, etc labeled as racist when that was just not the case. Many of those on the left I’ve found, are confused about what constitutes racism. Anna aka Princess is a PERFECT example. He does not understand the differences. He’s called me racist several times and he even thinks he is proving it with my own words. He is extremely confused.

Now, that rally that you “witnessed” equals 1 rally right? If there was a racist sign posted there and it appeared that it was condoned by the organizers, then I would agree that THE ORGANIZERS are racist. Ok, how many people is that? 10? And let’s say that all of those who attended approved of that sign (again no way to know that for sure and no way to know if there were any complaints concerning those signs), how many people? 50? 100? 1000? Ok.. there’s ONE rally. One rally out of how many? Do I need to go on (again)?

I can say that if I attended a Tea Party rally and saw someone holding a racist sign I would probably just give them a dirty look and mind my own business. If there was a banner, I would most definitely seek out the organizers and speak my mind. But many would not, some would leave, some would complain later possibly by phone etc. and some would do nothing and maybe not even think twice about it. The point is that THE TEA PARTY IS NOT RACIST. That is NOT their agenda. Their agenda is Obama’s SOCIALIST policies. There are some who attend Tea Party rallies who are, it’s never going to be avoidable… but they are a minority. You all are making quick biased blanket judgments.. again, it is what you all want to believe. Admit it.

“It has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with organizational management in order to project to the public your message as you want them to perceive it.”

Nice try but no, sorry, that is just not the case. It IS about numbers. “The Tea Party is racist”. That implies all or at least a majority. I just explained how one person’s view does not speak for another’s just because they are in the same crowd. And again, how many of these organized rallies had racist signs (banners)??? And how many rallies did not??? The liberal left simply do not have the evidence to support the claim that the “Tea Party is racist”. Please stop promoting false accusations and perpetuating racial divides. Stop distorting and twisting the truth! When you have the evidence that the MAJORITY of Tea Partiers are racist then you can happily announce it from the rooftops but until then…please stop causing harm to our country and falsely accusing people of being racist. Would YOU like someone calling you racist??

You do have a point about public perception of these random signs and how it can be misconstrued to seem to speak for the entire crowd. But I think I’ve proven here that the blanket statement that the left is perpetuating, that the Tea Party is racist is a false statement. It does seem that you’ve acknowledged that. Now if you could just explain that to everyone else on the left.

princessxxxsaid

janetshusbsaid

Why do you think the Alabama state flag is being waved in back of Palin at her Nevada rally? What do you think this flag signifies to the general public. How do you account for the fact that the organizers of this rally gave a prominent position of this flag on the podium, behind the speaker where it will be sure to be seen when viewed in pictures or on TV? How do you think the general public watching this video will interprete the vigorous waving of this flag at a Tea Party meeting that has previously carried racist signs.

princessxxxsaid

***JULY FINANCIAL UPDATE: With just 8 days left, we are down to just $30,000. God is sooooo good! One more family has responded with a $5,000 gift so we can pay off our budget shortfall from 2009. That means we only need 6 more to respondwith a gift of $5,000 to clear up this operational shortfall. I am standing in faith that by the end of June, we will have those last 6 gifts plus the remaining $30,000 of this months budget covered. Have you given to God’s work here this month? Ever?

kay~mssaid

See.. this is what I mean… the Alabama STATE flag now signifies racism?? Could you please elaborate on this? And the flag is not mounted.. someone is holding it. Some “one” is holding it. I will acknowledge that it is possible that ignorant organizers are maybe encouraging those that are racist to come out because they want all the support they can get.. they want the numbers. And if that is the case, Sarah Palin is wrong for allowing it to happen. I honestly would like to know more about why that flag is allowed to be there and if it was possibly purposefully positioned there. But this still does not define the Tea Party. This is the actions of ignorant organizers or a single individual… NOT THE ENTIRE GROUP.

I would like to ask… do you and all of the other accusers believe you are helping the problem of racism in this country by FALSELY accusing thousands of people of being racists when they are not? Wouldn’t it be better for all if you were honest and said SOME in the movement are racist instead of ALL??? You all are just as guilty of perpetuating the problem as the actual racists. You’re fueling the fire. You WANT the Tea Party to be racist. You’re USING a very sensitive issue to further your political agendas and “win” your arguments. And I think it’s despicable.

If you will note, Sarah Palin mentions nothing about race… it’s ALL about the POLICIES of the Admin. and POLITICS. Once again, I’m going to allude to numbers. One (or two or three) organizers or a whole group at one rally or individual people holding signs / flags etc. DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE GROUP. The Tea Party is about Obama’s POLICIES PERIOD. Yes.. YES there are ignorant racists in the crowds and also in the some of the organizing groups. There are ignorant people who want to encourage EVERYONE to come out and support the movement. Yes, they may be targeting racists so that the turn out is high. Yes.. there are imperfect people… none of us are perfect… ALL of us, of ALL races, are racist to some degree. And if you deny that you are lying.

It still comes down to numbers and it SHOULD, more than anything, also matter what is being spoken at these rallies. The MAJORITY of the signs SHOULD matter. But to the left these things don’t matter apparently, or actually, they are trying to make them not matter…. it’s purposeful ignorance pure and simple. And it’s dishonest tactics.

janetshusbsaid

One hundred angry people organize a rally. The press attends the rally. Most of the signs say “I’m upset with X” “Down with X” “Get rid of X” Five signs say “I hate beans” “Beans create pollution” “Beans are a noxious weed” “Destroy all bean plants” “Beans will take over your garden” The press reports that people are upset with X and are anti- bean. How is this not a legitimate assumption for the press to make. It is not the reporters job to sort out the anti-bean people from the anti-X people and report that the rally was really just about X. That is the job of the organizers and if they don’t sort out their message they cannot complain when it is misinterpreted. The Tea Party may be filled with people that embrace diversity but the party did not distanced it self from racists, it accepted racist signs in their rallies and tolerated racist language in their speakers because, as you point out they wanted all the support they could get. The press saw the signs, heard the speeches and said the organization had a racist element. How was this not correct. If you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. You may hate the fleas but you were the one that spent time where fleas existed This is not a socialist plot. It is not a liberal plot. It is not a President Obama plot. It is not a numbers plot. Nobody is fueling any fires or using a sensitive issue to win an argument. You guys did it to yourselves. And that’s what makes it so funny. Can I offer you some flea powder? ROTFLMAO

TruthfulBrutesaid

Well I stumbled on this ‘conversation’ and it seemed it was ‘mostly’ about abortion, and pro-life or pro-choice controversy.

Well I add a simple thought for the apparent perpetrator of this blog:

It’s amazing how easily those who claim to be Christians seem to forget the simple message conveyed by Jesus Christ(apparently for some the ONLY way to God and heaven). The ‘message’ for any true Christian is that (paraphrasing):
“you should treat others as you would wish to be treated’ – and you should: ‘love thy neighbor’.

In ‘my world’ this means that if YOU expect to have the freedom to ‘choose’ what you do and how you ‘live your life’ – then you should allow others the same ‘respect’. More than this you should demonstrably LOVE them, and support them no matter how much their views, choices and deeds conflict with your own opinions — and no matter how much that frustrates and angers you.

You may not agree with anyone who chooses to terminate a life before it has reached term of pregnancy. BUT frankly you are NOT God, nor are you His emissary, nor His messenger. And…At the end of the day God ALONE is our judge.

It is God ALONE who will determine whether any, or all of our choices in life have been good, bad or otherwise. And frankly (you should already know)God is all-wise, and also all-forgiving, so I should not ‘hold your breath’ and expect that ‘He’ will take YOUR view… By the way wisdom and forgiveness appear to be attributes that you singularly lack, according to my brief analysis of your responses during this ‘discussion’. (You would do well to spend more time thinking about this.)

You made your choice when the time was ripe for you to do so, and you are happy with that choice. Good for you. That is how it should be.

But it is not for you, nor any other ‘human being’, to determine how another person who arrives at their particular point of choosing, make the choice that they do. For me there is no such thing as the two camps — ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ — for all of life is about choice, that is a major purpose of our being here. And in due course every single mortal will surely be held responsible for their actions and choices in life, by the only Power that has the right to do this.

Your lack of ability to adhere to true Christian doctrine will also catch up with you in due course, make no mistake. Just as it will with so many others who do not live their daily lives according to the Golden Rule, and yet who ‘claim’ to follow the Bible but are actually, at best, adherents to the manipulative messages of ‘men’ who are using ‘variably interpretable’ archaic documents to support their own position, and foster their own small empires and financial and personal power base.

kay~mssaid

Truthfulbrute.. your comment is full of accusations and judgmental criticisms but you never once pointed to any of my specific words. Really, how do we know that your summary of me isn’t just based on nothing more than distorted reasoning?

You’ve claimed that I think I am “God”. You’ve claimed that I do not “love my neighbor”. That I don’t respect another’s right to believe as they choose or do as they choose (as long as it doesn’t harm others). And much much more… too much to waste my time listing. Just please, if you’re going to make accusations, please back them up. How am I going to correct the “error of my ways” if I don’t know what I’ve done wrong? Because I truly do not know how you’ve come to all these conclusions about me. Please help me to understand.. please be specific.

I will admit that I could be “kinder”.. that I should “turn the other cheek” more than I do. But as far as the “do unto others part”… I DO do unto others as I WISH they would do unto me…I debate the issues with honesty.

As for your view concerning abortion, I’ve heard it all before. No it is not my place or any “human being’s” place to make a personal choice for others. But abortion isn’t strictly “personal” when another human being’s life is affected. What you say… what all pro choice people say, is correct UP UNTIL THE POINT WHERE IT AFFECTS ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE. We have laws to protect our rights and well being. Pro life people want the unborn to be protected as well under those same laws.

kay~mssaid

Liberal minded people I’ve found, love to throw around accusations and criticisms all the time but never seem to actually back them up… and it’s always in that superior “wise” tone. It’s truly funny. It’s funny that you all think that no one knows that your silly berating rants are nothing more than self serving ego boosters. Something you all desperately need to do because of your stubborn ignorant refusals to acknowledge the truth.

Betsy Biggsleysaid

One hundred angry people organize a rally. The press attends the rally. Most of the signs say “I’m upset with X” “Down with X” “Get rid of X” Five signs say “I hate beans” “Beans create pollution” “Beans are a noxious weed” “Destroy all bean plants” “Beans will take over your garden” The press reports that people are upset with X and are anti- bean. How is this not a legitimate assumption for the press to make. It is not the reporters job to sort out the anti-bean people from the anti-X people and report that the rally was really just about X. That is the job of the organizers and if they don’t sort out their message they cannot complain when it is misinterpreted. The Tea Party may be filled with people that embrace diversity but the party did not distanced it self from racists, it accepted racist signs in their rallies and tolerated racist language in their speakers because, as you point out they wanted all the support they could get. The press saw the signs, heard the speeches and said the organization had a racist element. How was this not correct. If you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. You may hate the fleas but you were the one that spent time where fleas existed This is not a socialist plot. It is not a liberal plot. It is not a President Obama plot. It is not a numbers plot. Nobody is fueling any fires or using a sensitive issue to win an argument. You guys did it to yourselves. And that’s what makes it so funny. Can I offer you some flea powder? ROTFLMAO

sally jonessaid

One hundred angry people organize a rally. The press attends the rally. Most of the signs say “I’m upset with X” “Down with X” “Get rid of X”. Five signs say: “I hate dogs”, “Dogs create disease”, “Dogs bite”, “Destroy all dogs”, “Dogs are taking over our streets”. The press reports that people are upset with X and are also anti-dog. How is this not a legitimate assumption for the press to make? It is not the reporters job to sort out the anti-dog people from the anti-X people and report that the rally was really just about X. That is the job of the organizers and if they don’t sort out their message they cannot complain when it is misinterpreted. The Tea Party may be filled with people singing Kumbyah and embracing dogs but the party did not distanced it self from the anti-dog people, it accepted anti-dog signs in their rallies and tolerated anti-dog language in their speakers because, as you point out they wanted all the support they could get even if it was anti-dog. The press saw the signs, heard the speeches and said the organization had an anti-dog element because you did.

Nobody is fueling any fires or using a sensitive issue to win an argument. You can’t blame liberals, because it’s not a liberal plot. You can’t blame the media because it’s not a media plot. Nor is it a socialist plot or a Democratic plot. It is not a numbers plot. It’s not even an anti-Tea Party plot. You guys did this to yourselves all by yourselves. You don’t want to be called anti-dog but you want the anti-dog support. Lie down with dogs get up with fleas. You did yourselves in. And that’s what makes it so funny. Can I offer you some flea powder? ROTFLMAO

Anonymoussaid

A rally was held to protest against X. Most of the signs were anti-X but five signs were pro-dog. The press reported that people were upset with X and also support dogs. The organizers of the rally point out that the rally was about X and not about dogs and the media asked “Then why did you have pro-dog signs at the rally?” The organizers replied that they needed the dog lovers support to push their cause and they really weren’t dog lovers. But at the next rally there were more pro-dog signs and some doggie comments by speakers. The question was asked again “Why the pro-dog stuff?” The answer was ‘free speech’. At the next rally there were again pro-dog signs, comments and a very doggy flag behind the speaker. Nobody asked questions this time and the media suggested that the anti-X people were also dog lovers. Nobody lied about the rallies. Nobody put words into the mouths of the pro-dog people. The anti-X people themselves used a sensitive anti-cat issue to score points with dog lovers.

There’s an old saying: lie down with the dogs; get up with fleas. It appears that the anti-X people have a very itchy case of flea bites. That’s what makes all their protestations of plots against them so funny. They did it themselves. They disgraced themselves by their own actions. Can I offer you some flea powder?

Anonymoussaid

“It’s funny that you all think that no one knows that your silly berating rants are nothing more than self serving ego boosters. Something you all desperately need to do because of your stubborn ignorant refusals to acknowledge the truth.

Actually liberals are quite comfortable with truth. We tend to deal with facts rather than emotions. We use reference works, data bases, and research. When we don’t know something we try to find out the answer. We read a wide variety of materials not just those that support our own positions. We are curious about other points of view and we often try to engage conservatives in logical, fact based arguments. We don’t boost our egos with lying or ranting. We generally do that by telling the truth and supporting issues with our time, talent and money.

kay~mssaid

And I won’t argue that anyone who’s “laid down with dogs” has disgraced themselves… but that just means that they’re weak… it doesn’t automatically make them “racists”. You all are all too eager to make it out to be worse than it is…you all ARE using this issue and by doing so you ARE making it worse. Please try to be more accurate with your accusations. The fact remains, as a whole, the Tea Party is NOT racist. Again you have no proof to the contrary. I haven’t seen anything but the bare minimum of racist activities on the news. I can’t actually recall anything right now. I admit that I mainly watch Fox News and I know that if I watched MSNBC more I WOULD most definitely see the racist “proof”. But 1ST thing every day I check the news on CNN. And again, if the Tea Party is racist… where’s the proof? Surely CNN would report it. I haven’t seen anything but very sparce fringe incidents.

Anonymoussaid

The racist are in fact a minority in the Tea Party. Keep in mind that Ghenghis Khan was a minority. Ask the Chinese how that turned out. Here’s is your problem (stated again). You are permitting the racists to give you a bad name but you won’t, in MS Palin’s immortal words, ‘refudiate’ them. Your solution is to ask those of us opposed to racism to be quiet and not talk about the subject and especially not point out that the Tea Party needs/wants the support of racists.

So, OK, Let’s see how this is going to work. The liberal media is going to shut up about racism. They won’t report on the Sherrod smear by Fox, or the racist signs, symbols and speech at Tea Parties. The won’t mention the hate speech on the Tea Party web sites or the Obama hate sites financed by the same people that are financing the Tea Party. And ‘mirable dictu’ racism in the Tea Party will disappear. But asking the racists to leave the Tea Party because it isn’t a racist organization would somehow increase their racist numbers. Somehow the logic of this escapes me.

Just a thought about public perception. Television doesn’t have to report ‘proof’ of racism in the Tea Party they just have to show pictures of rallies and the public understands what’s going on. Fox does not show pictures of the racist posters and symbols at rallies. Have you ever wondered why?

Anonymoussaid

princessxxxsaid

SORRY JANET, I THINK THE MODS ARE ON VACAY, NOT SURE WHAT’S UP BUT IT HAPPENS SOMEITMES. GO FIGURE. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE SO PERFECT HOW CAN ANYONE REBUT THAT? SORRY ABOUT ALL CAPS BUT I CANNOT FIND MY GLASSES.

I LAUGHED SO HARD AT EVERYTHING YOU’VE WRITTEN, EXCEPT ABOUT YOUR CHILDHOOD AS MY MOM AND DAD WERE SIMILAR.

doriansaid

okay, janet, for now, we’ll just have to remember that you are aka anonymous and sally jones. our blog has had some anomalies lately. speaking of which –
kay, what’s your theory on why fox news does not show pictures of the racist posters and symbols at rallies? why do the leaders of the teabaggers allow the racists to display their posters if they “refudiate” the racist element in their organization? janet/anonymous/sallyjones, did i use ms. palin’s new word correctly in my sentence?

Anonymoussaid

I believe you have used refudiate correctly but for absolute certainty you would have to check the International Word Salad Dictionary. Leaving for Canada tomorrow morning, back in a week. Wishing you all a great week of discussions.

princessxxxsaid

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

kay~mssaid

“Here’s is your problem (stated again). You are permitting the racists to give you a bad name but you won’t, in MS Palin’s immortal words, ‘refudiate’ them. Your solution is to ask those of us opposed to racism to be quiet and not talk about the subject and especially not point out that the Tea Party needs/wants the support of racists.”

No, the original problem that is being discussed here is the false accusation that is being made by just about every leftist that the Tea Party is racist. It’s a false, deceptive and DESTRUCTIVE accusation.

To say that the right wants you to “be quiet” about it is not true. If the accusation is ACCURATE, I fully support speaking out against it and I do speak out against it myself too. And I know that others on the right would agree. The truth seems to be that there is a small minority of racists who are participating in the Tea Party movement. And it also seems to be true (although I’ve yet to see any proof of fixed signs) that SOME organizers are willing to use / attract people with ignorant racist views to increase support and numbers at the rallies. And it does seem that some are willing to look the other way and not stand up and do the right thing. But none of these things justifies labeling the Tea Party as racist. Once again, these are EXCEPTIONS and numbers DO matter.

And we are not “permitting” the racists to give us a bad name.. it’s you, the left who are giving yourselves permission to be deceptive by exaggerating and manipulating the truth to suit your agendas.

And especially… the Tea Party does not need the racists. The polls speak for themselves…. the majority of the country does not want Obama’s policies implimented in this country. THAT is what the Tea Party is about.

kay~mssaid

“Television doesn’t have to report ‘proof’ of racism in the Tea Party they just have to show pictures of rallies and the public understands what’s going on. Fox does not show pictures of the racist posters and symbols at rallies. Have you ever wondered why?”

TV just has to show pictures of rallies and the public “understands”?? Sorry but showing pictures of racist signs over and over but not reporting the ratio / numbers to give viewers an ACURATE understanding of how serious the problem is.. is a perfect example of biased and misleading reporting. And it’s looking more and more like that is exactly what MSNBC has been doing.

“kay, what’s your theory on why fox news does not show pictures of the racist posters and symbols at rallies? why do the leaders of the teabaggers allow the racists to display their posters if they “refudiate” the racist element in their organization?”

Why doesn’t Fox News show the racist signs? Well, for starters, I don’t know for sure that they don’t / haven’t. They may very well have showed them.. BUT in appropriate proportion to the actual problem. Most likely, Fox has shown the signs when reporting on how much the left is exaggerating the issue. That’s what I’d be willing to bet on.

What you both are really asking here is why doesn’t Fox News HELP the left perpetuate an inaccurate description of the Tea Party. Hmmmm, let me think about that one…

And I often wonder why MSNBC doesn’t report on so many issues that Fox news does, like the fact that we have so many socialist and marxist leaning people in the White House courtesy of Obama as one of MANY examples. And this is a fact.. if this country knew all of this before the elections… Obama would never have been elected. American doesn’t want people with these views running this country. A lot of Chicago style deceptions and bs coming to light now that Obama’s in the White House. And Glenn Beck isn’t even close to being done yet.

Oh, and the New Black Panther Party documented proof of illegal actions during the election and the White House’s “slap” on the wrist and their obvious racist double standards policy…. did MSNBC report on that??

“The brainwashing is all yours – you’ve been taught that God = Male, and you won’t entertain another way of thinking, will you? ”

I have never looked into this issue honestly. And I really don’t have a desire to do so now. It makes no sense that God would be either gender. And I know that He is Spirit. If God is neither, I see no reason to start calling Him “her”. I don’t see the necessity. It’s not what is important.

“Look, I appreciate your basic point, believe it or not. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion, and spiritually speaking the choice is a very difficult one. But we don’t live in a perfect world. In this world I don’t believe suffering is God’s will when the means to prevent it are simple, proven and available.”

Boy.. you just perfectly demonstrated why we do not live in a perfect world… it is precisely because we do not obey God and trust Him.

You said: “In this world I don’t believe suffering is God’s will when the means to prevent it are simple, proven and available.”

The unborn who are aborted DO suffer. If we obeyed and trusted God, there would be no suffering and no attrocities. That some do not obey God doesn’t then justify someone else committing a wrong in response. Those “exceptions” are not in the Bible.

And that an unborn person doesn’t know they are being aborted doesn’t cancel out the wrong that was committed against them. By that reasoning… it’s ok to steal from people or cheat on them or, I don’t know… drug and rape them… as long as they don’t know about it?

kay~mssaid

And this… “I’ve heard the same answer from other people who were abused as children; they wouldn’t know it if they’d been aborted, they only know what happened when they weren’t. If you’re going to argue that allowing suffering is a way of “protecting innocent life” you’ve got a very hard row to hoe with me, that’s for sure.”

More distorted “reasoning”… and many (statistically most) know that they are happy and are glad that they weren’t aborted, they are greatful that they were allowed their lives.

Your “argument” has consistently been that because of the low percentage possibility of the outcome not being positive, that then makes it ok to take away another’s life. It’s not a valid or reasonable argument. Again, it’s like punishing someone before any crime has been committed, on the basis that they MIGHT commit the crime. What kind of justice is that?

And I’m not arguing to “allow suffering” in order to protect innocent life. Just more distorting of my words. We are all responsible to prevent suffering, and of everyone, not just women. There are many solutions to the problem of unwanted pregnancies, but the pro choicers clearly have a favorite. Killing is, and never should be, the solution. But thanks to the hard work of Pro choicers, it’s the number one choice / “solution” and liberals have successfully convinced society that it’s the “right” choice too.

princessxxxsaid

kay~mssaid

“Rambling that science has no foundation in “truth,” proves my earlier point. Christians don’t even understand what science is.”

Oh… the liberal word twisting /ventriloquism thing again. I did not say that science has no foundation in truth. I said that YOUR “truth” has no scientific foundation. I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant. Nice try though. And you completely dodged my point but don’t feel bad, everyone does that.

“Science has one purpose only. To observe and study physical phenomena, in order to find the truth about how the physical world operates. That’s it.”

I never stated otherwise… I agree with that. But, that doesn’t mean that individuals can’t have personal motivations or agendas. And I think for many it is the desire to prove that God doesn’t exist. That if we can “figure it out” or explain how it works that means that God couldn’t have done it. And that has never made any sense to me. It’s just us figuring out how God did it. What is so clear is that He does not want us to figure out the ultimate question…

cont…

and that’s (one of) His way(s) of letting us know that He exists, the realization that our existence argues against scientific logic and reasoning. But pride and ego will still prevent many from acknowledging that. The more “brilliant” the man.. the more egotistical he is, and the more likely he is to not believe in a Supreme Being (Someone he has to answer to). In spite of the fact that the science he relies so heavily on (and the fact that those “truths” are for the most part, theories, that change all the time) says that our existence isn’t logical. This is a perfect example of how potent and harmful pride and ego can be. It’s ignorance gone full circle. And I have to point out that you displayed it yourself here, with your response. You didn’t address my specific point because you couldn’t yet you didn’t waver at all in your stance or at least acknowledge the point / problem with your stance.

“Finally, Kepler had to trust observation over faith.”

What observation was it exactly that told him God didn’t exist?

“The point here is that it was the Church that refused to accept basic undeniable reality, persecuting scientists like Galileo when truth flew in the face of their “faith” in a perfect Earth-centered universe.”

First, you say that science is not about proving or disproving God yet you just pitted the Church against science. You implied that God and science are not compatible.

So a specific group of people way back in history adhering to certain beliefs, that may or may not have been supported by scripture, somehow proves that God doesn’t exist? Or proves that conservatives / Christians today don’t understand science? And the persecutions of Galileo and other scientists were not supported by Christian Biblical scripture either. History is full of “Christians” who did not behave as the Bible instructed. They don’t define Christianity. But non believers always refer back to the “horrible” Christians in history to argue against Christianity.

Kay, you complain of people distorting your own words when you do it yourself. These abortion arguments you like to have. Much like all of your “debates”. They are not debates, but arguments. You do not present things in a way that would stimulate intellectual debates. You argue, you are very argumentative and give us a bad light really.

That being said, you know I am pro-choice for good reasons. I also have laid out my thoughts on when life begins. (there is no scientific consensus on the subject. That’s the best answer I could find when I researched the scientific information I found the subject split 50/50.)

I believe that a new human life doesn’t begin until after the fetus can survive out of the womb. In legal terminology it’s called viability. While it may not agree with your religious beliefs on when life begins, legally it doesn’t begin until you can survive outside of the womb. In fact, in many states if the fetus can survive outside of the womb then it is considered murder. I personally thing abortion clinics should be monitored and regulated by the state and federal department of health. The federal equivalent is the FDA. The only problem is that currently the FDA is as crooked and corrupt as the GOP itself. I only trust the state government, this is only because Florida has been aggressive in finding abortion clinics that pass themselves off as legal, but are really not.

Also, Kay from now on anything done by Bill Keller is banned from being posted on this blog for the time being. I will post something on that when I get more information.

Also Kay, it wasn’t scientists that started killing Christians. IT WAS THE CHRISTIANS THAT STARTED KILLING SCIENTISTS. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY STARTED KILLING MUSLIMS LONG BEFORE THERE WAS TERRORISM. So no that person did not pit Christianity against science. Historically, Christianity more notably the Holy Roman Catholic Church (the last surviving remnant of the Roman Empire by the way.) pitted Science against Christianity, and Muslims against Christians.

princessxxxsaid

princessxxxsaid

kams Commented 9 hours ago in Media
“Steven, don’t you know that my arrogance is contrived? Well, ok, maybe not ALL of it is but probably 99% of it. And my ignorance? What ignorance? I don’t want to be ignorant… please help me to see what I am ignoring. If my reasoning is faulty show me. But honestly, I don’t see it. And I don’t see how anyone can outright dismiss the existence of God when there is valid reasoning to the contrary. Since we cannot prove His existence, or disprove it, reasoning is all we really have. But no one wants to reason with me… why??

Not fun anymore? You mean, I WAS fun? See? another reason to keep me around.. I can be fun again. I mix it up don’t I? Although I do admit I’ve been… “under the weather” lately and therefore not as much fun.. sorry… again. (to everyone this time actually). I’m 1/4 English hence the constant apologies. But they are sincere. ok, one more drink and I’m headed for the door, no need to escort me.”

CONTRIVED, THAT MEANS YOU ARE LYING, BUT , THE TRUTH IS YOUR ARROGANCE IS REAL, JUST LIKE YOUR IGNORANCE, B!TCH

princessxxxsaid

how does one pronounce kams?
does it rhyme with scams
or does it rhyme with games?
threatening liberals with eternal flames.

some suggest she is clever,
lol, i say never.
contrivedly weavin’
HuffPoster Steven
into her crazy spider weber.

caught in her own trap,
mired in her bu!!cr@p
the liberals express a doubt
which causes the spider to shout:
“THY WILL BE DONE, THY KINGDOM COME,
IT’S NOT THAT EASY TO BE DUMB.”
she throws a childish tarantulum.
i’ts not what the post is about.

along comes wordsmithie
with comments so pithy:
“no more deceiving,
it’s time you are leaving
as i’ve told you before kams, just get out.

Miss Mamselle sips her merlot
says Anna, “girl, you go..
we’ve defeated the spider
lets’ drink bubbly cider
and be fabulous, from head to toe.”

The actual economics connected with online online casinos are amazing which
have a practical land-based online casinos costing approximately $300 million to construct, while on the net the purchase
price is as minor as $1. 5 mil, yet YOU Federal government
Legislation firmly insist to express of which gambling is usually
jeopardizing everything connected with value for a benefit whose come back is usually to any kind of level contingent
on opportunity. You should attain your upper-hand nevertheless to carry out that you must memorize the
essential black jack tactic along with the art work involving cards depending in addition, you
should utilize the info from cards checking to produce bigger gamble
once the side golf shots as part of your give preference to along with smaller sized
table bets once the side is within the particular dealer’s some good.